Post 102 Conversion in Christianity

Today’s subject is a follow-up to that of Post 100, but Isaiah 56 intruded—for a valid, though not necessary, reason. Consider it an extra gift, even if an intrusion. So, in view of their related subjects this one is really the follow-up to Post 100.

At the beginning of Post 100…. 100?  Wow, that’s worth a celebration for me. I have started three other blogs at different times and never made it up to a hundred. In fact, I always stopped—perhaps “dropped” is a better word here--far short of it. I was always preoccupied with major writing projects that squeezed out any time I thought I had for blogs.  So, I would simply drop them by not publishing any more posts.  But they are still there and people are still accessing them. One of these days, I should summarize what each was/is about. This time I was able to stick with it and made it up to 100, 101 in fact! No, with the last intrusion, 102!—the very one you’re reading right now. I’m proud of myself for having made it thus far and, not the least, grateful to God for giving me the stamina to carry it through.

The reason for the current situation is that I have no more major writing projects going that require a lot of serious research, energy and time. So, now I can relax a little and have more time for writing posts. Now this is one of my major writing projects.  So, celebrate? Yes, by all means. Treat yourself to a McDonald double cheese.  You won’t be out much!  If you find yourself in my neighbourhood, I will even buy you one. Now, how’s that for generosity?  Do I sound like a Dutchman? Of course, if a McDonald double cheese is not your kind of thing, I’m not sure where we’d go. I can’t afford more than $1.85 or so per reader! And then only if you don’t all come at once!

That said, back to Post 100. I wrote there that I would write about conversion in both Christianity and Islam, but ended up writing only about Islam’s view, Nigerian Islam, to be more specific. Some people, especially Asian and Arab Muslims, apparently don’t take Nigerian Islam seriously or consider it important. I make that statement on basis of their uninterested reaction when I tell them about my Christian-Muslim series about Nigeria. But that’s for another blog some day. (Why am I so easily diverted today from the announced topic?  Is it because “conversion” and “reversion” rhyme so well with “diversion”  that it becomes a perfect fit?)

The WCC conference in Post 98 demanded that Christians, along with others, drop their “obsession” with conversion. Stronger than that, actually: They are to “heal” themselves of that obsession! Apparently, it is a sickness to desire someone to convert. Psychologists, here’s your excuse to add another psychological problem to your official list of diseases and specialists. What shall we call this new specialty? How about  “conversionitus?” I have a history of coining new words and consider myself good at it. Another “–itus” term I once coined is “change-itus,” referring to the interminable decades of administrative changes to which my church has subjected its staff, especially its overseas missionaries like me. (If you’re curious, you may go to my memoirs, Every Square Inch, vol. 2, p. 148, on the Boeriana page of my website < www.SocialTheology.com >.)

At the same time, WCC always maintains that genuine inter-religious dialogue—and that was the essence of that conference—requires that no one feels threatened or that any religion should give up part of their core. Those requirements to drop that “obsession” and to retain your core are not easy bed partners. Both Christianity and Islam regard conversion (or reversion) as part of their core. You eliminate that part and you end up with a distorted, truncated, shriveled up version of the religion. It is no longer true to itself. One great missionary statesman of a century ago, Karl Kumm, whose legacy consists of millions of Christians in northern Nigeria and for whom I have the greatest admiration, wrote that the church must obey the Great Commission to go and make disciples or it must perish. Obeying that Commission is its life blood.

That Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus’ parting shot in Matthew, simply cannot be wished away. And, having been a professional missionary throughout my career, I feel put on the defensive. Did I misdirect my life, waste my time?  Should I have done something more constructive?  Were all the books and articles I published and all the lecturing I did—and they were many; just check out my website—useless or, worse, damaging to inter-religious dialogue and to everything else?

Indeed not! That Muslims could go along with that demand, I understand somewhat. See Post 100.  But that Christians should have gone along with that, is in some ways amazing to me.  However, knowing the WCC mentality somewhat, it is not totally surprising to me, for there always has been a lot of wishy-washy thinking in that organization, not to say liberalist thinking, that has been quick to play down the uniqueness of the Christian message and opt for a “soft” egalitarian view of all religions.

But I hasten to pre-empt a conclusion on your part that I totally dislike, disagree with or even condemn WCC. I have argued on the Boeriana page of my website that my church, the Christian Reformed Church, should join WCC, both to learn from it and to contribute to its programmes out of our own tradition; We have much to give—and much to learn. Over the decades, I have cooperated with WCC from my Nigerian perch at various fronts and have generally appreciated their input. But especially in the dialogue section, there has been that negative aspect, even though there, too, I cooperated with them appreciatively.  

But it does not fit well for Christians to drop their “conversion obsession,” or to “heal” themselves from it. Conversion to Christ is not a missionary obsession; it is the greatest gift I can offer to people. Bringing people to believe in Christ is the most liberating thing you can do. Just ask anyone who has made the transition. I am not suggesting that I need to prevent them from going to hell. I frankly cannot conceive of all of the world’s non-Christians going to hell. That would render the Kingdom of God a dismally failed enterprise.  All these billions to hell? Sorry, I simply cannot accept that.  It neither fits my concept of a large, gracious and generous God nor my view of the scope of Christ’s accomplishments.  He did enough to cover all or, at least, by far most of us.

I don’t know about the Hitlers and Stalins among us or the oppressive religious leaders of Jesus’ own day, but I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions. If it were my responsibility, I might have no compunction about assigning our Hitlers and Stalins c.s. to hell. But move away and “heal” myself from urging folk to repent or convert is hardly an obsession that Christians can drop at will without the church itself perishing, shriveling up into a dry creek. I would rather argue that the Christian church is increasingly in need of healing from lack of interest in conversion! 

Oops! I’m already quite far beyond my maximum goal of 750 words. I haven’t finished the job. See you in 103.

In the meantime, today, the day of this posting, we are both mourning and rejoicing the crucifixion of Christ. It’s Good Friday, an ambiguous day for us. But the resurrection is just around the corner and that’s what it’s all about. So, Happy Easter to all of you. The Lord has risen!—the traditional Christian Easter greeting, to which the usual response is “He is risen indeed!”

Post 101--Messages of Hope (Isaiah 56-57:2)--

This morning I was reading from Isaiah 56 in the Old Testament (OT) and found it such a beautiful chapter that I decided to share it with you without a lot of comment. Isaiah, you might know, is an OT prophet who is such a pleasure to read, especially in a modern translation. This passage is from the translation by Eugene H. Peterson called The Message. 

This post is an intrusion in the current discussion, but it's also an extra one. This being Holy Week 2016, I thought it well to direct your attention to the Hope that the Bible gives to this crazy and oppressive world. Read these words slowly, savour them and meditate on them.

Salvation Is Just Around the Corner

56 1-3 God’s Message:

“Guard my common good:
    Do what’s right and do it in the right way,
For salvation is just around the corner,
    my setting-things-right is about to go into action.
How blessed are you who enter into these things,
    you men and women who embrace them,
Who keep Sabbath and don’t defile it,
    who watch your step and don’t do anything evil!
Make sure no outsider who now follows God
    ever has occasion to say, ‘God put me in second-class.
    I don’t really belong.’
And make sure no physically mutilated person
    is ever made to think, ‘I’m damaged goods.
    I don’t really belong.’”

4-5 For God says:

“To the mutilated who keep my Sabbaths
    and choose what delights me
    and keep a firm grip on my covenant,
I’ll provide them an honored place
    in my family and within my city,
    even more honored than that of sons and daughters.
I’ll confer permanent honors on them
    that will never be revoked.

6-8 “And as for the outsiders who now follow me,
    working for me, loving my name,
    and wanting to be my servants—
All who keep Sabbath and don’t defile it,
    holding fast to my covenant—
I’ll bring them to my holy mountain
    and give them joy in my house of prayer.
They’ll be welcome to worship the same as the ‘insiders,’
    to bring burnt offerings and sacrifices to my altar.
Oh yes, my house of worship
    will be known as a house of prayer for all people.”
The Decree of the Master, God himself,
    who gathers in the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather others also,
    gather them in with those already gathered.”

While the above speaks to the common man, the next few verses address the leaders of the day, specifically the religious leaders. No compliments there, let alone messages of hope; mostly insults for having led the people astray. 

9-12 A call to the savage beasts: Come on the run.
    Come, devour, beast barbarians!
For Israel’s watchmen are blind, the whole lot of them.
    They have no idea what’s going on.
They’re dogs without sense enough to bark,
    lazy dogs, dreaming in the sun—
But hungry dogs, they do know how to eat,
    voracious dogs, with never enough.
And these are Israel’s shepherds!
    They know nothing, understand nothing.
They all look after themselves,
    grabbing whatever’s not nailed down.
“Come,” they say, “let’s have a party.
    Let’s go out and get drunk!”
And tomorrow, more of the same:
    “Let’s live it up!”

Never Tired of Trying New Religions

57 1-2 Meanwhile, right-living people die
    and no one gives them a thought.
God-fearing people are carted off
    and no one even notices.
The right-living people are out of their misery,
    they’re finally at rest.
They lived well and with dignity
    and now they’re finally at peace.

Post 100—Conversion in Islam

Though Muslims, as I explained in Post 99, use the term “reversion” for anyone converting to Islam, call it what they may, others, including myself, consider it “conversion” plain and simple. So, our topic for today is the place of conversion in these two religions, which is not quite the same as defining the term, for they do not quite mean the same thing in the two religions.

Conversion is, of course, usually the result of a mission or evangelistic outreach by a Muslim or Christian, whether individual or organization, to another individual or community, usually with the explicit goal to bring someone or a community to conversion.  I say “usually.” It does not always come about that way. For example, many are the Muslims throughout the world who dream of a person dressed in a white robe who invites them to come to Him, who is often then identified as Jesus. Thousands of Muslims the world over have such dreams and they usually end up in accepting His invitation. There are entire books written about this kind of conversion invitation. These are not the result of any human outreach or other effort and certainly not of any “obsession” that WCC talked about in Post 98.

 There are indeed forms or styles of mission outreach to convert that are objectionable to people who do not adhere to the religion practicing it but that are usually perfectly acceptable to the adherents themselves. Muslims often quote the Qur’an that says there is to be no compulsion in religion, but they employ all kinds of compulsion and force. You ought to read the Christian volumes of my Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations to see how frequently Muslims use force to “revert” people to Islam according to Christian complaints (www.SocialTheology.com/islamica, volumes 3, 5 and 7).                                                 

Allow me one example from Nigeria. A Nigerian pastor friend of mine borrowed money from the government to establish a chicken farm. He was not able to keep up with the payment schedule and ran the risk of losing his business along with his investment. Christians did not offer to help him out with loans. When the Muslim community heard about this, they offered to pay his entire debt provided he become Muslim. Being desperate, my friend accepted and became Muslim. This has been years ago and he has not changed his mind ever since. The moment he does change his mind and returns to Christ, the Muslim community will demand repayment and, failing to come through, he will be hauled to court. (For the full story see our memoirs Every Square Inch, vol. 2, pp. 59-62 on our website < www.SocialTheology.com/boeriana >).  If that is not force, I don’t know what you call it. And if that is not a contradiction to that earlier statement about no force in religion, I don’t know what that is either.

However, you must be careful about accusing a religion not your own of contradiction, for I find that when non-Christians accuse us of contradictions, it is usually due to ignorance or, using more gentle language, misunderstanding. It is easy for us to fall into the same trap with respect to Islam. The above story is typical, not an exception. Muslims use both the stick and the carrot methods to induce “reversions” in all kinds of ways. As I said above, read my series and you’ll find a dizzying range of variations of force and “tricks” on their part. Another clever way is to surround a Christian business with such stiff competition that the owner either becomes a Muslim or closes his business—all perfectly legal!  And on and on and on…. Muslim authorities all over the world are known to create legal demands and restrictions on the Christian community with respect to registration of churches and building permits.  We have arrived at the border here between persecution and a campaign to “revert.” It’s a very thin line and it all smells of compulsion, even if called “reversion.” Word juggling does not change all of reality!

But do understand the Muslim position. If you are convinced that being a Muslim is the greatest gift you can wish for a person, then such tactics may seem minor in comparison to the magnificent gift they turn into. After all, adults punish wayward children in love for their own good.  An adult non-Muslim may not be a child, but she is in a state of jahiliya, an Arabized Hausa word for “ignorance.” She doesn’t really know what she is doing. A little push in the right direction seems a small price to pay for the end result that can only be described as magnificent. My experience in Nigeria as I record it in my series is that Muslims just don’t comprehend why not everyone wants to become a Muslim. What greater good can you possibly imagine for yourself?

So, they really are obsessed by wanting to con—or revert everyone, but that’s a good obsession and not a negative you would ever think about giving up on.  However, when someone is obsessed about trying to convert his neighbor or community to another religion, say Christianity, well, yes, such an obsession is unhealthy and must be let go. And so Muslims signed that declaration in all seriousness and good faith. To adherents of other religions this may seem like duplicity and hypocrisy; to a Muslim it is the only way to go. You have to think yourself into the other’s skin in order to understand correctly and not judge wrongly. 

In other words, to expect Muslims to give up on conversion is to ask them to give up on a core component of their religion.  That is not what the WCC conference that published the declaration expected of any religion.  The religions were not expected to surrender any part of their core; they were to remain true to themselves. Whether the declaration and the expectation can co-exist, is another question. 

Post 99—Conversion: An Obsession?

A Peek Behind the Scenes 

You may be wondering how I choose my subjects for these posts. It may seem to you that I move from pillar to post without any obvious rational. To some degree that’s true. I do not have a well worked out schedule of topics that rationally follow each other. It goes like this. I come across a discussion or opinion during the course of my readings and find myself reacting, “Oh, I should do a post on that subject.” Or an important event takes place. I have a whole list of subjects waiting to be tackled. Then, as I write on it, the subject itself calls up a related subject that then needs attention to round off the one I am working on. And so I move today from a WCC interfaith conference to conversion. Before I even begin writing on it, the subject has already led to a consideration to, of all things, total depravity for a next post.  And so it goes. If I’ve made you curious, then I’ve succeeded!

Conversion among Religions

So, conversion. In the light of the above paragraph it will not be difficult for you to understand why I take on that subject. That conference called on all the faithful of all religions to do away with their “obsession” with conversion.  That decision is not difficult to follow for some Eastern religions or Judaism and others, for those are not traditionally missionary religions. They are more like tribal religions that are restricted to and identified with one distinct people, like the Jews. Or they may largely be concentrated in one geographical region like Hindus and Buddhists.

My Christian reading of the Old Testament (OT) makes me wonder why Judaism is not a missionary religion. I read in the OT that God’s plan for Israel was temporarily to focus on Abraham’s offspring. But the long-range plan was for Abraham’s seed to become a blessing to the entire world. Well, don’t have the space to treat this more extensively. The last half century, Buddhism, one of the Eastern religions, has become quite active in the West, not only following its immigrant adherents, but finding ready soil among fall-outs from either Christianity or secularism. For these and other non-missionary religions, it is not difficult to follow the demand to drop the obsession to convert. They never had it to begin with, except then this recent exception.

Conversion in Islam--No/Yes

Two religions that are particularly missionary minded both in theory and practice are Christianity and Islam. For these two religions, a call to drop their “obsession” with conversion amounts to considering the religions themselves as “obsessions,” for their missionary character is part of their core or essence. You take away this missionary thrust and you end up with a stultified version no longer true to its deepest core.

I can somewhat understand Muslim leaders signing on to this declaration. They do not talk of conversion so much as reversion, that is a coming back, a coming home.  That is to say, to them everyone is by nature and by birth a Muslim. When a person leaves another religion to become a Muslim, he does not convert but revert. She returns to what is the created natural religion; she returns home where she belongs. Secondly, calling people back to Islam, though a drive deep within the religion, is also considered a natural pose. Of course, you want people to become Islam. That’s not an obsession; that’s the best thing you have in mind for them, the greatest gift one can offer to your neighbor or entire nation. So, when Muslims sign on to such a document, they are thinking not of themselves but of Christians with their aggressive missionary approach. When they sign but nevertheless continue to preach their gospel, to Christians that seems like duplicity and hypocrisy. Not so to Muslims. They merely do what comes and is natural. According to Muslims, it is Christians who are doing the unnatural, which thus amounts to an obsession.  

However, when Muslims are busy urging folks to "revert," to other religions they are converting, while they pledged to quit. It's one of the many reasons people tend to mistrust the words of Muslim leaders. 

Concluding Remarks

Well, too late in this post to start talking about this Christian and, as other people see it, Muslim “obsession,” even though I have not yet reached the quota of 750 words. But I’ll let it go for now and come back to the subject in the next post.  This implies that the subject of “total depravity” will be pushed ahead one slot.  I think you can live with that, for it is not a very pleasant subject! No one is eager to think about that subject, let alone talk about it!  BBBRRRR! How awful!  

Post 98—Long on Freedom Talk

An International Multifaith Conference

Some time ago the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Vatican held a joint conference to find a common code for religious conversions.  First, a word of identification. I believe we all know that the Vatican is the Rome-based headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).  You may not be familiar with WCC. It is a group of nearly 350 denominations that include Reformed, Anglican, Orthodox, Evangelical churches and only God and WCC know who else. 27 persons attended the conference, including adherents of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Animism as represented by the Yoruba tradition. So, a small group as far as world conferences go, with the Christian organizers having a mere scant majority.

As I understand it, they made two major decisions. The first, is freedom of religion, officially already a recognized a non-negotiable throughout the world, though the practice falls far short of the official. The second, to go easy on converting others. As the report put it, “All should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.” 

Freedom of Religion?

          Non-Christian Persecution of Christians

As to the first, insisting on freedom of religion is great. It is virtually a global mantra. But then what do you do in a world where Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in particular deny Christians their freedom in scores of countries?  Buddhism and Hinduism are traditional tolerant religions that in the past gave Christians and Muslims freedom to practice their religion. But recently they have become increasingly intolerant of especially Christians and Muslims.  One of these days I will devote a few posts to illustrate the truth of this last sentence. In general, wherever these traditionally tolerant religions find themselves threatened by either Christians or Muslims, they become intolerant and oppressive; they even begin to persecute, destroy and kill.

As to persecution of Christians by Muslims, do you even need to be made aware of that?  It’s all over the map, not only in the Muslim-dominant countries, regions and societies, but even in the West, though sometimes there indirectly through their willing lackeys, some of whom are very powerful, but politically correct  people who glad hand Muslims and refuse to face the Muslim reality in their own Western countries. Geert Wilders is perhaps the most (in)famous Westerner who tries to awake sleeping secular Europeans to this reality. The fact that he often does this in a totally blunt and politically incorrect manner does not mean he is totally wrong in his major concern. In Canada we have our own Ezra Levant.

          Christians Persecuting Christians

And then I have not even mentioned the freedom that Christians in some countries deny other Christians! This takes place in some Orthodox societies, where the dominant church resists the incursion of Evangelical Christians—in Greece and Russia in particular. Now there maybe some semi-legitimate reasons for such resistance, such as Evangelical, often American, disrespect for local deep-rooted historical churches and their leaders. Nevertheless, the principal of freedom of religion stands and may not be undermined by perhaps disgusting or insulting behaviour on the part of outside challengers.  I can well imagine that fundamentalist foreign missionaries can present a serious problem among these Orthodox churches, but that must be solved within the range of religious freedom, not by curtailing it.

A parallel situation obtains in Roman Catholic Latin America, where all strands of Protestants have established missions, churches and institutions, especially Charismatics.  The members of these new churches mostly are drawn from the RCC. So, no wonder the RCC resists them, sometimes in whatever way they can.

We can even make the same point about secular countries and quite a few of my posts speak of secular resistance to full-orbed Christians. However, secularists were not invited to this conference. So, in this post I will leave them alone. 

 

A Grain of Salt

So, here sit these religious leaders with all their wisdom and pomposity, robes and mitres and hats and staffs and all. Very impressive. All of them piously affirming and insisting on religious freedom for all their people, while at home they support and possibly even engineer intolerance and persecution of the very faiths with whom they have signed for tolerance in this conference.

I always take the declarations and communiqués  of such conferences with less than a grain of salt, knowing that many of the signers do so hypocritically. I have taken part in similar conferences between Christians and Muslim in Nigeria and understand the dynamic. The participants use the same language but interpret it in terms of their own religion and, often secretly, exercise the right to hold the declaration they signed in reserve.

The next post will deal with the alleged obsession.

The website of the WCC is  www.oikoumene.org/    

Post 97—Do You Have a Cigarette?

Het is geen man

Die niet roken kan

Smoking in Lutjegast

That little vignette is one I grew up with in my Dutch village Lutjegast. It means simply that if you don’t smoke, you’re not a man. And our village meant it, seriously. As a young boy, I knew every single person in the 1100-person village, barring none. And I knew a great deal of child-appropriate stuff about almost everyone, barring one or two.  But there were two categories of people who puzzled me: those who were not married and those who did not smoke!  That married thing affected both genders, but the smoking only males. Women did not smoke, period. One who did would hardly be considered female—the complete opposite. 

And smoke the men did—with a few exceptions, but they were not men anyway, these mysterious creatures. Everyone, from pauper to pastor smoked. Though pretty well all Christians in today’s Canada oppose smoking and see it as an unhealthy addiction, that was not the case in Lutjegast or in the rest of the country. Even our church elders during their monthly meetings would smoke cigarettes, pipes or cigars, possibly accompanied by wine.  My Dad, a serious Christian, was one of the main cigarette merchants in town. As Christians, we were strictly opposed to so-called “worldly amusements,” but smoking was not one of them.

As to myself, during my early teens I was eager to join the ranks of adult men. One of the rights of passage to arrive there was to smoke. So, I would rush the season by occasionally “borrowing” a package of cigarettes from my Dad’s supply and share cigarettes with my friends. Just imagine the hero I was!  Ah, yes, we were getting there!

Imagine our surprise when we immigrated to Canada in 1951. For the first time in our lives we met Christians who thought smoking sinful, especially Baptists.  What kind of Christians are these? we wondered. Smoking sin?  Aw, get off the pot (pun intended)!  We were from a Reformed church in The Netherlands and smoked lustily right after our Christian Reformed (CRC) morning service—outside, for all to see.  We became known as the “smoking church,” a derisive distinction among Canadian Christians.

That was the 1950s.

Baptist versus Reformed

The tradition continued for some time after our immigration to BC, also in my own life. Though I was too young to be a dedicated smoker, Dad did occasionally allow me to smoke a cigarette. I have several pictures from that period of my smoking, one of them in our living room right after coming home from church. Over time I became a regular smoker, though never a heavy one. I actually went in and out—quit and resumed, quit and resumed. Later, during my 50s in Nigeria, I would smoke an occasional  cigar or pipe, but Nigerian Christians severely reprimanded me. I eventually gave that up as well, not because I considered it sin, but it hurt my throat and vocal chords—which, I guess, did turn it into a sin, since we are not to abuse our bodies. My Dad, he was a chain smoker for some 40 years.  

Fast forward to the 21^st century—2016. Somewhere along the line at around 60, my Dad suddenly quit cold turkey and from there on chastised anyone who could not manage such a drastic change—really, kind of hypocritical. But today you will hardly see anyone smoking after a CRC service. Neither will elders smoke during their meetings. We’ve become Canadians!  Indigenized. Smoking is sin, we now argue vigorously. The Baptists were ahead of their time. Well our time anyhow. Not just time wise, but even ethic-wise.   They were right; we were wrong! Wow, that was a hard one to swallow.  Baptists more right than we Reformed?  Was that possible?  Well, they were, possible or not. Some of us are still smarting from that humiliation! 

But in Canada we’re pretty well on one page on this one now, Baptist or Reformed, Christian or Secular. There’s a strong awareness that smoking kills and is, in fact, one of the most ferocious killers in the country.  Many places are now out of bounds to smokers, including restaurants and city parks, most major buildings, not to speak of church facilities. Remaining smokers are feeling the pressure and are defensive. Things have turned topsy-turvy.  Now it’s almost a matter of

                                                                  

                       Het is geen man

Die nog roken kan

“It’s not a man who still smokes,” but now women (vrouw-en) have to be included as well, like:

Het is geen man of vrouw

Die nog roken wou

By now you can probably figure it out! But, just in case, here it is in the Queen’s English:

It is not a man or woman

Who still wants to smoke

Doesn’t quite sound like a limerick in English, but it makes the point.

The following public practices have become offensive and are seen as ill-mannered:

         

Smoking in any crowd, thereby forcing people to inhale your secondary smoke, even on the sidewalk, at a bus stop, in the park or on the beach.

          Dumping your cigarette butt carelessly on the                 street. It’s considered littering, especially when               your city has attached butt trays to lamp posts for           that purpose.

Smoking yourself to death at my expense. Of course, that holds for all unhealthy practices, some of which, I am hesitant to admit, I practice as well.  So we all end up in the same ball park.

What of those who argue smoking is part of our freedom?  Should it even be that?  When it creates so much sickness leading to death and I have to pay for the results of your addiction through our medical system? Why should I?  Our forced insurance system logically leads to a great increase of my public responsibility for my health and for a restriction of my freedom to smoke or engage in other personally harmful practices. I have at least the moral, if not legal, right to demand you stop. Through our insurance system, we have become each other’s keepers—exactly where Jesus wanted us to begin with. It took a Baptist preacher-politician to get us there almost over the dead bodies of the RCMP. 

Even as a human right smoking is now frowned upon.  The last couple of days there’s been a story in the media about an employer who for years has refused to hire anyone who smokes, on or off the job, even at home. Even in “human rights-cracy” Canada, so far no one has sued him. No one has yet tried to make a quick legal buck of this practice? That says something about how far we’ve come—a long way indeed.

What of those who argue smoking is part of our freedom?  Should it even be that?  When it creates so much sickness leading to death and I have to pay for the results of your addiction through our medical system? Why should I?  Our forced insurance system logically leads to a great increase of my public responsibility for my health and for a restriction of my freedom to smoke or engage in other personally harmful practices. I have at least the moral, if not legal, right to demand you stop. Through our insurance system, we have become each other’s keepers—exactly where Jesus wanted us to begin with. It took a Baptist preacher-politician to get us there almost over the dead bodies of the RCMP. 

The best solution to all this is to encourage each other to live our lives along the best health guidelines as possible and remember our responsibility to each other.

Now try that last version of that Dutch limerick on your smoking friend!

Post 96—Farewell to Shelley Fralic

In contrast to Post 95, this is a shorty. Possibly the shortest of all so far.  It is a farewell letter to Shelley Fralic, a columnist with the Vancouver Sun, who has retired. 

My Dear Shelley

These days we don't often start letters with "Dear....," especially not a married man to a woman married to someone else. But today, for this one very special occasion, I cannot resist it.  

I was shocked when I first learned of your retirement. Will there still be life after Shelley Fralic in my hands in the morning along with my cup of tea--cup of coffee in the case of my wife.  Well, yes, there will be, but it will not be an improved life.  

Your final column is so beautifully written, so full of love for the Sun and its readers, so emotional. So aware also of the responsibility of a journalist not only but also of her influence and power. I have often said that the Sun is a more effective opposition than any official opposition party, partially because she is not paid to oppose. It opposes when it has to, when it is just the right thing to do.  And you have been an active player in that role. 

So, Shelley, thank you and good bye.  I pray for rich, rewarding and grandchildren-filled years ahead for you.  I have been in that phase of life for some fifteen years now and believe me, it is indeed the best part of your life in spite of its inevitable dead end. I will archive your last column, if only to keep me attuned to the responsibility of a writer, of which I am one.

I think I will make this letter public by putting it on my blog under the title, "Farewell to Shelley Fralic."

Jan/John H. Boer

West End, Vancouver