Post 198--Leftist Intolerance

Happy new year!  I was hoping to share with you some thoughts about Christmas, but I could not get around to it.  Then I thought, "Oh, well, I'll get something for new year."  Didn't do that either. And now we're already January 10.  A "happy new year" wish too late for you?  In Nigeria, even in April, if I meet up with a friend I had not yet seen that year, I would still wish him a happy new year.  (Now anytime you say anything about Nigeria, you have to specify the ethnic group or geographical location, for you cannot ever generalize about a nation of 180 million people. About the only two things you can say about the country is (1) everyone is Black, though of various shades; (2) everyone loves soccer or football. As I read this over, I confess to a bit of exaggeration, but Nigerians don't mind that--at least some don't!

Today I am passing on to you a sad, if not infuriating Alberta story about leftist intolerance of Christian schooling and the Bible. It comes to us from that revel Ezra Levant. I'm just going to let him loose and sock it to you without any further interference from me. It is about:

A left-wing bureaucrat attacked a Christian school for teaching the Bible. But now the school is fighting back in court!

EL

Last year we told you about the Cornerstone Christian Academy in Alberta. A bureaucrat at the Battle River School Division, Lauri Skori, literally ordered the school to stop teaching passages in the Bible that she personally disagreed with. For example, Skori ordered the school to stop teaching a passage from 1 Corinthians, because she finds it “offensive”. Not just that, but the bureaucrats tried to put a gag order on the school, to forbid them from talking to anyone about what the school board was trying to do! Things have gone from bad to worse. Rather than respect the Cornerstone Christian Academy’s religious freedom, the school board has served the school notice that it will be officially kicked out next year — so the school won’t get any funding. It’s effectively being shut down, because a left-wing, anti-Christian activist doesn’t like the Bible. But I’ve got good news: Canada’s best (and only?) civil liberties lawyer, John Carpay, is taking the school board to court, to stop the Battle River School Division from banning the Cornerstone Christian Academy. Here’s my interview with John, where he describes the situation, and what he’s doing about it: Last year we raised more than $5,000 for John his team to help the school — they tried to reason with the school board, and negotiate an amicable solution. That failed, so unfortunately, they have to sue. Let’s help them out. I’ve promised to help him raise another $2,000 to help pay for his team of lawyers to fight for the school’s freedom of religion, against government censors. You can read John’s lawsuit for yourself, here. If you agree that this anti-Christian bigotry is unacceptable, please join with me in helping to chip in to support the school by clicking here. Yours truly, Ezra Levant P.S. When I first heard that a bureaucrat was literally banning passages from the Bible, I thought it was a joke. Unfortunately not. Please click here to help fund the only civil liberties lawyer in Canada who seems to care. P.P.S. The mainstream media doesn’t care — they actually support Lauri Skori and the bigoted school board. So it’s up to us to spread the word about this. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family, and make www.TheRealBigots.com your Facebook status. Because the real bigots here are the anti-Christian extremists at the school board, don’t you think?

Post 152—A Place for Spanking

I hope you don’t get tired of my apologies and my changes in direction or even promises not kept—which is not the same in my mind about breaking promises.  The document that I thought I would discuss in follow up from the last post is not what I expected it to be. So, we will let it go and do something else today. However, in case you’re curious, here’s URL that deals with issues somewhat related to that of Post 151--

               

       https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/02/14/thoughts-religious-                                           tolerance/#feature

Yes, something else, but not something completely different. While the last post talked about shooting and murdering, this post will talk about spanking. To some people that’s in the same class as shooting and murder—it’s all doing violence to people.  Some time ago a friend of mine, Mark Penninga, the Executive Director of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada published an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun under the title”Time and Place for Spanking.” I’ve written about this issue before, because I believe when a government gets involved in ordinary family affairs, it is intrusive and goes far beyond its legitimate reach.  Government and family exist in different spheres, each of which have their own laws and protocols. Governments may only interfere in families when there is evidence of families being highly dysfunctional. To some people, spanking, any kind of spanking, no matter its severity, becomes the government’s business, for its mandate is to protect its citizens, even infants, from violence, including parental violence.   

Penninga’s main point is that the term spanking covers a broad range of meaning, ranging from the gently corrective to that of the cruel and abusive. Attempts to have government make every form of spanking illegal in order to prevent the cruel type, has the opposite effect.  Then he demonstrates his point at length, all of which you can read yourself by turning to the articles’ URL (see below). One study, for example, that covered 50 years and examined 26 other studies concluded, “Whether physical punishment compared favorably or unfavorably with other tactics depended on the type of physical punishment.” The study looked at what the researchers called an “optimal” type of physical discipline — conditional spanking—and upheld it as legitimate.

Penninga wrote:

Sweden in 1979 became the first nation to outlaw all physical discipline. Since then, criminal charges for physical child abuse by relatives against children under age seven increased by 489 per cent between 1981 and 1994. There was also a shocking 519-per-cent increase in criminal assaults by children under 15 against children aged 7-14. Perhaps most devastating, 46-60 per cent of cases investigated under Sweden’s law result in children being removed from homes. About 22,000 Swedish children were removed from homes in 1981, compared with 1,900 in Germany, 710 in Denmark, 552 in Finland, and 163 in Norway.

Consider the 2010 case of a mother and father from Karlstad, Sweden, jailed for nine months and ordered to pay 25,000 kronor ($11,000) to three of their children who were spanked. More damaging than the jail and fines, all four of their children were removed from their home. Although the court concluded that the parents “had a loving and caring relationship to their children,” apparently spanking is serious enough to merit such an extreme sentence.

And then he concluded,

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child abusers), so that the other institutions of society can flourish. The institution of the family is an independent part of civil society accountable directly to God (although the state increasingly understands itself to be a god it seems). Parents are entrusted with the authority to lovingly raise their children and the state may only interfere in exceptional circumstances, such as real child abuse.

There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.  So far my friend Penninga. 

The Vancouver Sun published an editorial supporting Penninga’s main argument, while the highest court of the land agreed as well, but not everyone did, as you can see on the last of the three websites that appear below. As to myself, I am the product of a tradition of occasional reasonable spanking when deserved and emerged a humane, highly educated and successful person from a peasant background without any spanking baggage to sour my life. The same holds true for all 9 of my siblings as well as for the 11 and 9 siblings of my father and mother respectively. As the Bible puts it, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” That’s ancient wisdom that liberals tend to deny, often having contempt for the past and its ways.

So, here are three URLs for you to check out, with the third one vigorously rejecting the point of this post.

 http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+Time+place+spanking/11049750/story.html.

See also www.keep43.can for supporting arguments.

            See www.nospank.net for opposing view.

Post 132--Biblical Attitude towards Prostitution (1)

The Bible was written in a world where prostitution and other sexual practices were common. Prostitution is a very  ancient practice. It is not dubbed the oldest profession by some for nothing. By Genesis 38 it was already an established custom that served various purposes and vested interests. Female slaves were offering up their bodies to earn money for their masters. Free women entered it as profession, for so it was regarded. Brothels were not uncommon (I Kings 3:16).

Some decades ago, Amsterdam, the capital of my “old country,” was lauded for its progressive attitude towards prostitution, for they regulated it, derived taxes from it and sought to reduce the health problems that usually attend to its practice. Licenses were required from houses of prostitution with the government deriving revenue from it. This was sort of a win-win situation, sort of, probably better than the usual unregulated conditions. But this is nothing new, for similar arrangements have been discovered in the ancient world.

So, a whole culture had developed around the practice that is well circumscribed throughout the Old Testament (OT) especially. Prostitutes might wear special clothing, even perhaps a veil (Genesis 38:14ff; Proverbs 7:10). Of course, the price would vary depending on circumstances and social status.  We read of a loaf of bread (Proverbs 6:26); a kid (Genesis 38:17); a boy could be given away for a harlot’s wage (Joel 3:3; Matthew 4:3). Hebrew father was not to give his daughter to it (Lev 19:29).  Nor could priests marry a prostitute

So, ancient, firmly established and commonly practiced. If you want a fuller dose of it, I would refer you to volumes 1 and 2 of the International Standard Bible Enclopedia—1982 edition by Eerdmans—volume 1, pp. 815-817; volume 2, pp. 616-617.

Though when we think of prostitution, we usually think in terms of women selling their bodies to men, those we dub the “johns.”  But in the world of the OT it seems that male prostitution was as common as the female version. And besides the blatantly commercial version, there was a lot of religion involved in terms of cultic prostitution, including temples.  The cultic in this context does not refer to some extreme version but of mainstream or mainline practice. Prostitution was often closely tied to religion, the opposite of what we might expect. In fact, most of the OT passages dealing with the subject are tied to its cultic practice, though not exclusively. 

So, when the Bible speaks of prostitution, it is not talking about some exotic realm practiced in the shadows. No, much of it was in the open and official, both recognized and approved by the dominant cultures around Israel; in the centre of things instead of in the shadows, not on skidrow as in Vancouver’s Down Town East Side, but on Georgia and Robson Streets and in the churches lining West End streets.

But one of the first things you will notice when you begin searching for the topic in the Bible is its strongly negative attitude towards prostitution. It does not have a single good word to say about it. There are various reasons for that attitude; it’s not just a matter of “kill joy.”  In fact, the very opposite; it’s more a matter of “enable joy,” real joy.  It led—and still leads—to so many ugly problems in society that God wanted to protect His people from this “kill joy.”  Probably the first reason was of a religious nature, since religion is always at the heart of every society—the cult prostitution. "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:17).   The next verse: "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.…”  “There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel (1 Kings 14:24). The cultic practice was an abomination to God because it was a common Pagan practice among the nations around Israel that constantly tempted the people to follow their example, have their “fun” and gradually transfer their loyalty from the God who delivered them from slavery in Egypt to the numerous idols of their neighbours. These were false “gods” that the OT frequently pokes fun of as powerless and of being made of mere wood or stone. These so-called “gods” deceived them, brought them false hope and distorted their values. They represented a culture rejected by God because of all its corruption, cruelties and oppressions.  It was hard for God to protect them when the people themselves were so open to and tempted by these cultural and religious travesties. And so God tried to put a stop to it altogether by simply condemning it in no uncertain language. 

There was another but related reason for the negative attitude towards prostitution. It can lead to social and cultural breakdown, even apart from the religious angle, but time is up and the word limit has been crossed. So, that will mean another post on the subject. See you in 133.   

Post 126—The Human Plumbing System

I have long wanted to do a post on a rather messy topic: human defecation. In some cultures this is a no-go area, or, perhaps, in most even. It basically was in the rural European culture of my childhood. It simply was not talked about, though no reason was ever provided. The taboo was just there floating in the air as it were. Everybody who grew up there was aware of the taboo, even though it was never explained. I see no reason for this taboo in that culture, apart from the fact that it is a messy business. But at least we acknowledged it enough to make provision for it. Everyone had some form of toilet at their house, either in or outside.

In the case of our family, by the time I was aware of such things, we had a toilet stool shaped like modern flush toilets, except that this one did not flush. The product would slide down a wide tube into a cement holding cistern underground right next to the building.  Twice a year a local farmer would empty the cistern by scooping it out with a pail with a long handle into a wooden tanker on wheels with a spreading mechanism at the back and pulled either by a horse or an ancient tractor. The farmer would spread it out over his meadow, where the cows grazed—and we would buy and drink the milk!  Well, it was our own, after all!  Today the village has a full-fledged modern sewer system that automatically takes the product to a mysterious destination somewhere. Residents no long have to worry about it. Taken care of. Though I have left that culture since 1951, I believe they have loosened up on that taboo somewhat.

Why do I bring up such a macabrous  subject? I have often thought about our human plumbing system with a degree of admiration about how our Creator engineered it. How it allows us to eat things that our bodies reject. When you think of it, it really is quite an amazing system regardless of its messiness.  And to think that a holy God would even bother creating such a messy system that in probably all cultures is considered filthy and to be avoided. This should teach us to be more respectful and appreciative about it and not consider it such a taboo subject. Even the Bible is open about it.

Not only did our Creator design it, but it can generate humorous situations. The reason I bring up the subject today is precisely that: humour. This week one of the great American newspaper published the story about how the Indian government is trying to discourage people from defecating all over the place, except in toilets. Here’s the story:

India’s government has been on a public toilet-building spree. Now, it’s trying to shame people into using them. An aggressive new campaign ridicules those who are no longer poor but continue to defecate in the open—a practice that remains common in rural India. The advertisements mock the very idea that India is developing. The tagline says: “Only the habit of using a toilet is real progress.”  And the ridiculing is done by children. “Uncle, you wear a tie around your neck, shoes on your feet, but you still defecate in the open. What kind of progress is that?” asks a child in one commercial. Another says: “you may have a smart phone in your hand, but you still squat on the train tracks.” 

Now, macabre as it is, I am quite sure it brought at least a smile to your face. So, I have achieved two things so far: I’ve reminded you that our holy God created this messy system and that therefore we should respect and appreciate it more. Secondly, I have made you smile, which in this grim world, is quite an achievement. I’m almost proud of myself!

The way various civilizations manage their human plumbing system is usually not just random. It is often tied up with basic aspects of their culture. I hope to give an example of that in our next post.                                     

Post 112—Have It Your Own Way!

The Graham "Machine"

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina).  I don’t know the date of this document nor just what happened with Katrina, but I think her perspective is worth some serious consideration.  I appreciate the evangelistic outreach of the Graham “machine,” for I believe God has used especially Graham Senior in a remarkable way. On the whole, I am not very impressed with the rather narrow Christian perspective that seems to fuel the “machine.” But, then, most evangelists are fueled more by godly passion than deep intellectual thought. All of us have our roles to play and the statement below does indeed contain some grist for your mill. 

That said, I share Anne Graham’s statement below with you. It wasn’t what I had in mind for this post, but events of the past few days prevented me from doing an original of my own. So, rather than leave you in the lurch, here’s something to occupy yourself with. It’s not just a biscuit; there’s some well-cooked meat here—with apologies to the vegetarians among us. Just consume it intellectually and spiritually! 

Anne's Statement

      God, Get out of our Way!

Anne Graham gave an... insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. 

      Spock's Magic

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. 

      Sowing and Reaping
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. 

      Forwarding the Message
Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

                               

Post 107--Beards--The Whys and Wherefores

I had another topic in mind for this post, but then I chanced upon an article about beards in a Dutch digital newspaper. Why, the question was, do men sport beards?  Since I have had a beard for decades and have had to endure that question time and again, let me clear the air once and for all.  And although I have a long list of subjects literally screaming at me for attention, I’m going to self-indulge today and talk about myself. However, before I get to my own personal reasons, let’s see or hear the explanations of some “authorities.”

The subject is such an earth-shaking one that no one less than the BBC entered the fray. Here’s the reference:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160418-the-real-reason-men-grow-beards

So, now you can get the real truth on the topic from the highest authority!  On this website you will meet British psychologist Tamsin Saxton who, according to Trouw, that Dutch paper, begins by nixing what is probably the greatest myth, namely that men expect women to be more attracted to bearded men than to the clean shaven type. It does not appear to be true. Instead, beards allegedly play more of a role in competition between males. Both men and women think of the bearded among us as the more dominant and aggressive. Also beards apparently elevate the status of their bearers. Instead of a charmer, we bearded ones consider ourselves more of a dominant fighter, something we allegedly relish

The article mentioned a number of other British researchers of beards. I don’t feel the need to mention them all, but one name strikes me as very humorous, if not hilarious. One who researched British beard fashions between 1842 and 1971 was called—no, I don’t think you guessed it—Nigel Barber! How appropriate is that!

I am utterly surprised that simple personal preference has not been accorded a role in all this discussion. Well, these experts should have called on me. I sport a beard because I happen to like the looks of a beard. Well, not just any beard. A cultured beard, one that is taken care of. The wild kind from your sideburns to your navel I abhor and think ugly, tasteless, whether combed or not. But I have wide tolerance for cultured and looked-after beards, especially when they’re black, which, unfortunately, mine is not. So, that is my main reason for having a beard: I just like the bearded look and dislike the totally clean shaven look.

Closely related to my liking a beard is my theory that God created us with hair both on top of our heads as well as our cheeks and chins to give us a chance to be creative with it. Not merely tolerate your hair and just comb it just to get it out of the way, but to use it as a personal expression of yourself; a statement, if you like. Let it bring out your individual self in a creative way. Be a hairy artist!

I have a healthy self-image, but I have never liked my hair, that is, my top hair, for it is straight and a dull blond. It does not allow me to do anything creative with it. So I had a perm for some years, but that apparently reduced my status among my peers as a “wild guy,” not respectable.  That’s when I discovered that status is important to me, in terms of respect more than pride. Then, when the price kept increasing, I decided to give it up, but I still kind of mourn its loss. As a result, my beard has become more precious to me. My hair just sits there on top, firmly restrained in its rebellious nature by tons of gel and  mouse.

I have three additional reasons for my beard, none of which seem to have surfaced in the research reports. The first is a genuinely pious reason. As a child I used to sit on my mother’s lap as she read from a children’s Bible full of pictures of bearded men—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the rest of them all sported beards. As a child I decided that I would grow a beard when I grew up to look like these holy venerables and get used to the beard world that I would undoubtedly meet in the next life, in Heaven. So, partially to identify with these saints, to honour them; partially to get myself in psychological shape for the next life.

Secondly, I have an underchin. Underchins don’t look very nice. So, I hide mine behind a beard!  Very simple. No one would know about that situation if my dear wife would cease telling people about it! But as she relishes telling people about my underchin, all my friends are aware of it. All my pleas to her to stop that story are of no avail with her!  She just keeps embarrassing me with that story.  By the way, do you recognize any humour in my telling you this underchin story?  I myself originally came up with this story just to be funny, but her many repetitions have taken the fun out of it for me! But for the rest, I love her.

There is a third and last reason for my beard, particularly its shape: a handlebar and a pointed chintuft. It apparently gives me a distinguished look not only but also humorous.  Here the twain meet: status and humour. I have a wild sense of humour and love to make people smile—and that’s what my beard does to people on the street. So many people on the street have negative facial expressions or just none at all, just blank, but my constellation of facial hair brings out the smiles and I love that. 

Never thought I could write 1000 words just on the topic of beards!  Today, I did it!  And I’m not even finished. Could tell you a couple of humorous stories on the subject. Alas, a 1000+ is enough for one day. Hope you enjoyed reading it.  Have a beardy day!

Post 88—Den Tandt’s Ecumenical Remedy (continued)

This is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of Michael Den Tandt's remedy for religious fundamentalism.

Den Tandt’s remedy, you may recall, is to recognize and act upon “the commonality of the religious experience,” something that is acknowledged by a wide range of scholars. He regards this “remarkable.” I similarly recognize certain commonalities all religions share in some way.  Den Tandt attributes this commonality or ecumenicity to “something in the human condition that gravitates to spiritual experience.” I agree with that assertion. We Christians attribute this to creation: We were created with a wired-in predisposition towards religious experience, in fact, towards God Himself. That, in fact, is the very reason for our creation or existence. In spite of my love for philosophical speculation, I am not much of a philosopher. Nevertheless, I kind of like Den Tandt’s reference to Dean Hamer, an American geneticist, who theorizes that this human gravitation towards the spiritual has a “biological source” residing in our DNA that he calls the “God gene.” I have not read Hamer’s writings and so do not know the details of his theory. If I had read his stuff and knew the details, I might reject his all of his assertions. However, without knowing those details, I am favourably inclined towards this alleged “God gene.”  Why not? 

Now to many people, giving spirituality a biological or physical base may seem unorthodox and even highly heretical. Spirituality with a physical base?  Most of us Westerners especially walk around with a dualism between spirituality and the physical. We place a distance between them and never the twain shall meet. That is of the essence of Secularism. It is part of our Western world view that we simply assume without ever examining it. But if God has created us for the specific purpose of serving and worshiping Him, if that’s what we were made to do, then why dismiss a physical side to our spirituality deep down in our psyche or our mind?  Spirituality and the physical are simply two sides of the one coin of reality. They always go together. North American Aboriginals, Traditional Africans and all other Animists reject this Western secular bifurcation or separation. So does the Bible. The Bible is more on the side of Aboriginals, Traditionalists and Animists in this regard than on the side of Secularists and the majority of Christians who are influenced by Secularism. So, yes, there may well be such a thing as a physical “God gene.”  The notion of creation seems to allow it not only but may even demand it. However, I stand to be corrected, especially by Christian thinkers who have not bought into this Western secular bifurcation.

So, we affirm with Den Tandt a level of commonality among the various religions and world views. Many of them, including “explicitly non-religious traditions,” hold to a “cluster of beliefs that insists on exclusivity.”  They will argue that Jesus or Muhammad or Buddah is the only way to salvation.  Even the (in)famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins insists that “every way of understanding reality but his own is wrong.” In other words, such exclusivity is, in Den Tandt’s own words, part of that commonality, is embedded in it. On what basis then does Den Tandt separate them, accept the positive but reject the negative that is just as much part of the equation?  Why grudgingly “respect cultural differences but celebrate commonality” when they both together constitute that commonality?  This stance seems similar to many African governments that, in their quest for national unity, want to excise tribal consciousness by pretending that tribes do not exist. You try to create unity by disregarding or even denying one of the most important components in the equation. Den Tandt seems to want to create an ecumenical culture of commonality by simply excising, denying or negating the part of it he dislikes, without giving a reason.

He clinches his argument by proposing we “accept that religious systems exist and evolve,” but without claiming to “owning exclusive rights to the truth, which is to say none.”  But how does this apply to Den Tandt’s own position? If no one has “exclusive rights,” on what basis does he?  I am reminded of one of his colleagues at the Vancouver Sun who some years ago declared pompously that there is no absolute truth. I sent her a quick note challenging the inconsistency of this statement. Denial of absolute truth is itself an absolute declaration! She responded with a mere “Oops,” as if she merely had made a logical slip. I responded to her that hers was no mere logical slip; it was a  total inconsistency inherent in her world view. Since she did not continue the discussion, it stopped right there. Well, it seems to me that Den Tandt is doing something similar. By denying everyone the exclusive right to the truth, he is denying his own as well!

Michael, I appreciate the courage you display in proposing a remedy for religious fundamentalism. We need it badly and any attempt at it should be taken seriously and with appreciation--but also weighed seriously.  You need to rethink your commonality. Thanks for trying and for challenging me. You readers, this is an important issue. I invite, nay urge, you to weigh in with your comments.

Blog 60--Contradictions and Inconsistencies: The Stuff of Life

I’ve been gone for a week, camping with daughter Cynthia and her family and some other friends. The group was great for socialization and the river-side facility was great—and free for us!  But in the latter half of July, you can expect warm weather, not so cold that you shiver and have to put on layer upon layer, especially when there is a camp fire ban due to extreme drought. We broke up camp and returned disappointed to the coast at Kent, near Seattle. But there the heat was so intense that camping was just as uncomfortable. We broke up camp again and returned home in Vancouver, disappointed, not to say disgusted. All of which is to explain the extra long time between posts.  

Blog 59 is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. I know these terms are not exactly synonyms, but I will kind of use them as such in this blog. Notice how imprecise that last sentence is?  When I wrote this post, it was Monday morning and I didn’t feel like forcing too much precision on myself. So our topic for today is just right—for me and, I hope you can live with it. 

It happens quite frequently that my wife (Fran) and I catch each other in contradictions, the term now including inconsistencies as well. We usually acknowledge it, but the conversation often leans toward a negative attitude towards such things. It seems more virtuous to be consistent, even though as years have taken their toll, we are becoming increasingly tolerant of contradiction. Is that natural with age?  Or is it the effect of post-

modernism on us? That we’re veering away from the demands of strict logic?

At any rate, the previous blog was full of it. I agree and disagree with Pete McMartin; same for the VS editorial. And then I reject both of their approaches for not going to the heart of the matter. I was fully aware of it and was good for letting it all stand. Sloppy thinking could be another reason I could add to the above paragraph. Combining “sloppy thinking” with “reason” is surely an example of the very thing I am talking about.

I am a graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) in Grand Rapids (MI, USA). It is a good seminary and I am proud of having graduated there (1965). I have given quite a detailed report on my three years there in our memoirs (Every Square Inch: A Missionary Memoir, vol. 1, chapter 12-- <www.Social Theology. com >. Once there,turn to the first entry on the Boeriana page.)

In terms of our subject for today, I wrote about how bored I would occasionally be in Systematic Theology (ST) classes. Systems are usually logically coherent entities. So, in these ST lectures the point was to fit the Bible and theology into neat logically consistent boxes. The result gave a static feeling. Everything stood still. Even God came out as a static being that is fully consistent with Himself, including even that most “illogical” construct of the Trinity. Sometimes I would get so tired of it, I would play hooky for a few days and spend my time reading other theologians. I especially liked the writings of professor Gerrit Berkouwer of the Free University of Amsterdam for the contrast between him and my CTS profs precisely because Berkhouwer did not construct such tight logical boxes; he was more open. 

Neither does God fit into our logical boxes. The profs did  acknowledge that when it came to issues of election/reprobation vs human responsibility. They had inherited that difficult conundrum from childhood and had grown up being comfortable with it. But somehow that mostly static view of God did not cut it for me.  Of course, I am talking the 1960s. I suspect that the atmosphere at CTS has changed like everything else in this world.

The emphasis at that time at least was on a God who tolerates only truth, truth being at least partially defined as logically consistent statements and intolerance for what we might call “gray” statements over against the plain black and white stuff.  I loved and still love the stories in the Bible that challenge that kind of static God in favour of a more fluid one. There is the story of the midwives who lied to Pharaoh in order to save the baby boys of the Israelites, but whom God blessed because of their courage (Exodus 1:15-22). Then there is the story of Samuel’s anointing David to be the next king. Samuel objected to God that Saul, the current king, would kill him for what amounted to a coup. Then God instructed Samuel to give a false reason for his coming to David’s town (I Samuel 16:1-3). God is described as repenting or regretting things He had done (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; I Samuel 15:11, etc.). At the same time, we also read in I Samuel 15:29 that God “does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” So, a very fluid picture of God under certain circumstances, though still faithful and trustworthy with respect to His people. 

So, I do not apologize for the occasional contradiction in my own life, including those in Blog 59.

The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the famous Latin phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” meaning, “I think; therefore I am.”  It expressed the idea current among philosophers at that time—and still for some ordinary folk even today—that the essence of a human being lay in his rationality, his mind. If you know something—and that means you are thinking, you have a mind-- well, then you must be a human being. Something like the touristy trend of thought, “It’s three p.m.; hence this must be Victoria.” Taking off from there and following a radically dangerous step into the almost forgotten country of Latin, I would like to suggest, “Contradicio; ergo sum,” hopefully meaning something like “I contradict; therefore I am.” It does not define my essence, but it does make me feel just a bit more comfortable. At least, it gives me a vague permission to contradict myself—of sorts.

Post 55—Wasting Water: A Precious Resource

Spent part of yesterday at Derby Reach, a park on the Fraser River near Langley BC. There were many shrieking happy children voices as they ran around innocently playing their games without any thought of the potential effect or ramifications of their games. Well, of course not. Who would expect such concerns from happy playing children?

There was a water faucet nearby that was difficult to open, but once opened it spurted out water with great gusto, obviously under great pressure down below. There is probably only one activity that children playing in a river-side park like better than water faucets—throwing stones in the river’s water. We were not disappointed on either count. Many were the stones that ended up in the river and many were the gallons of water the children managed to squeeze out of that stubborn faucet and promptly dumped on the grass a few feet away—all evening. Perhaps we should have counted the gallons.  Water a precious resource as some claim? You’d never know from these children—or from their “supervising” parents who did nothing to stop the “innocent” play. 

It’s hard, if not harsh, to criticize children playing their innocent games.  I love watching them go through their antics.  So much fun; so much joy; so much innocence.  No, I won’t criticize them, but I will criticize their parents for allowing them to waste so much water. Today this group of families; tomorrow that group—but ongoing from day to day throughout the park season.  Gallons and gallons of it without let up.  

Water a precious resource? You’d never guess that to be the case either when you drive through North America’s suburbs with their spacious lawns in the summer time. Gallons upon gallons poured out daily to keep them green, only to be mowed every few days and that beautiful grass to be mulched on a weekly basis. An entire industry has grown up to serve that culture of beauty and—waste.  Yes, waste; pure waste of a precious and diminishing resource. Almost totally mindless.

It’s not only the people in Western countries who waste water mindlessly. I have lived in communities in an African country where women have for decades and even centuries had to daily haul water from distant places to cook and clean.  Usually on their heads; sometimes on shoulder or back. It was an unending and tormenting task without ever a break.  I have rejoiced with them when their government would install a water system for the community.  

You’d think that after life-long scarcity and hard work, they would be very careful in their use of the new easy supply of water, but that is often not the case. In contrast to the past where they rationed it carefully, they will often leave the faucets open and running when no one is around to catch the water. I’ve been amazed to see this. Just like the playing children and the law sprinklers above, they seem to think the supply is endless. They just let it run on and on and on….  Almost totally mindless. 

If you keep up with the news, you will know that in the US desert state of California, drought has set in with a vengeance, severely impacting the cost of food not only for the local people but throughout the US and even Canada. As we speak, I watch the price of food in Vancouver BC climb and climb and wonder when it will settle down. The question for all of us, not just Californians, is what can be done about it?  Where will it end?  Do we even have the gumption to address it?  Can a government that wants to address it seriously by restricting access in some way even survive?  

It’s a topic I plan to address off and on. I hope to occasionally describe various plans that are being offered to rescue the situation and the people’s reaction to them. What motivations might be needed for people to become more careful in their use of this precious resource?  Could financial incentives bring a change in behaviour? Perhaps water comes too cheap for us to bother?

As to myself, I have an in-built water restraint: my Christian faith.  I don’t need a financial incentive to reduce my water consumption. I am very conscious of the very first command in the Bible that instructs us to manage well the garden God has bequeathed us. This demands that as the supply diminishes, we devise more economical ways to use it. It demands an end to mindless or selfish wastage. And if nothing else, having experienced those African situations, every time I observe wastage, whether water or anything else, I get nervous.  That experience should be enough for anyone. 

So, this post is an example of  the previous post: the Biblical tradition of mixing religion with the “secular” things of this world. They cannot be separated, for your faith, whatever it is, will always influence your response to these situations. Check yourself. What would be at the bottom of any attempt of yours to convince you to change you wasteful habits?  You will find there is always some value system or belief that underlies your response. If you’re a Christian, the previous paragraph should be part of your motivation and that should be stronger than any financial considerations, though they also have a legitimate part in all of this.