Post 104—Admission, Confession and Total Depravity

Behind the Scene

A reviewer of one of my writings wrote that I write as I talk. Well, yes, I guess that is true. Another characteristic of my writing is that I like to converse with you, my readers, about, for example, the reason for my choosing this or that subject. Today’s topic is kind of an ugly one that I do not particularly enjoy dealing with. The subject arose in my mind in the context of my posts of last month on the World Council of Church and its suggestion that religions should “heal” themselves from their “obsession with conversion.” Just how or why today’s subject arose in that context, I do not quite remember. However, it lead me to write the main body of this post. I did not like the subject and so kept postponing publishing it. However, neither do I like to waste time writing stuff I do not publish.  Besides, ugly as it is, it is a very important truth that cannot be ignored if we wish to understand human history in general or today’s current events or even our individual selves And, oh yes, I am very aware of how politically incorrect the subject is, and how insulting to proud secularists, but, then, I am not known for political correctness. So, here, just as I am and just as we all are-- with no further soft kind of apology.

This post should have been written earlier like in post 100, right after 98 and 99.  Other issues intervened so that the flow of thought was broken. So, while I hope you found the intervening posts helpful, please refresh yourself by going back to posts 98 and 99 in order to get into the right mood for this one—if that’s even possible!

First, a confession or admission.  For a moment I was not sure which is the proper term in this context. I really want to go for the latter, since the concept of confession usually includes an element of guilt. What I’m about to admit here is partially due to ignorance, which in turn, was due to incomplete information, but does not involve any sense of guilt, at least not a heavy dose of it. Don’t worry, if there were heavy guilt involved, I would know it, sense it, recognize it, for as a Christian I am very aware of guilt in all I do, for we confess it regularly in our church services, if not in our personal spiritual life.

In fact, my particular version of Christianity subscribes to the teaching of “total depravity.”  Perhaps you recognize this version as the Calvinist or Reformed or Presbyterian, three terms referring to the same tradition. The last century the term “Kuyperian” and related terms have appeared to point to a sub-group within the Calvinist tradition. It is the “brand” to which I subscribe and which sets the tone for this entire blog as well as my website < www.SocialTheology.com >.

So, “total depravity.”  What an awful term, don’t you think? Even though I subscribe to it, I don’t like the term. Even less do I like its awful reality, but reality it is, believe me. No, don’t take my word for it. Just look around you in the world, in fact, all of world history as well as current events, and it faces you everywhere. But it does not mean what it seems to say on the surface. It does not mean that the human race only does evil, not even its most immoral or amoral members.  But it does mean that everything we do, even the very best, has a negative or sinful aspect to it.  It may not be dominant; the good in a particular action may far outshine that negative part, but it is there without exception, even in the life of the most saintly.

The most saintly missionary of the ancient church, the Apostle Paul, cried out that he, of all men, was the most miserable precisely for this reason. And I am quite sure that even Sister Theresa would have been very conscious of that negative side of her life. Saints, the best people in the world, are usually the most aware of this reality in their own lives. And I say this of Sister Theresa, even though she was a Catholic, a church that rejects “total depravity.”  Her Church may reject it; she personally would have been very conscious of it without approving or using that term to describe it. It’s just part of being a saint: To be aware of your own shortcomings, your own selfishness, etc. A saint never feels that she’s arrived, always feels short. ( Not sure I would dare say this about this lovely Saint if she still were living among us. She just might sue me! You never know what lawyers can talk us into!)

The Heidelberg Catechism, one of the most popular creeds of the Reformed churches, teaches that our wills are “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”  This needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  This creed was coined during the hefty years of the Reformation when both sides were inclined to extremes and often threw out babies with the bathwater.  Once the totally aggravated spirits of Europe simmered down a bit and they came to more moderate opinions, they turned to the more moderate opinion I already mentioned. Yes, we are totally corrupt; that is, we can do nothing perfectly; it is always tainted by sin to some degree. But to claim we “are wholly incapable of doing any good” surely goes too far. Was Gandhi, the Hindu, incapable of any good?  Come on. You can’t take that seriously. He has become a human icon and hero to almost all the world. Even Christian leaders like Martin Luther King followed his lead. Gandhi did a whale of a lot of good. Nevertheless, if one were to dissect his soul and mind, he would find that negative factor called sin in the mix, most likely more than you might have expected!

So what is the admission to which I referred in my opening sentence? The conference I discussed in Posts 98 and 99 was held way back in 2006—a decade ago!  I wrote as if it were a current event. This happened because the source as it came to me was undated and I failed to check that out on the internet, even though I gave you the website of WCC in Post 98.  I did not know and I did not practice due diligence, the very failure of which I accuse Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Now is this an admission or a confession? I chose to characterize it as the former. However, I also admit (or confess?) that this failure skirts confession. I did not know, but I could have and should have known by practicing due diligence.  My failure may not be earth shaking, but it was a failure that should not have happened. Failure of due diligence does have an element of guilt or irresponsibility.

In the meantime, I took you along a diversion to one of the most unpopular and unpleasant teachings of Calvinism—but also one of the most realistic ones. 

The wonder of it all is that it has not turned me into a sour puss or miserably negative person. In fact, I am a cheerful person because the other side of the coin is being born again, something I wrote about in an earlier post, and about being forgiven. That combination takes away all the stress of that negative reality. It is still there, but it is trumped by the reality of the other two. Halleluiah!

Note: I will be away camping at a place north of Langley, BC, on the shore of the Fraser River. I expect to come home next week Wednesday, for the weather woman tells me it will rain on that day. During this period, there will be no new posts. And upon my return, there will be so many emails and other stuff needing my attention that it may be a week before you see a new post. But you never know. If the weather changes unexpectedly, I may return home earlier. So, I invite you to keep checking every couple of days. The next post will be on the lighter side of Trump! I suspect you’ve heard of him? As strange as it may sound to some, you will see that there is a lighter side to him. 

Post 95--Trudeau: Due Diligence? (2)

  

More “Spontaneity” and Populism?

The same issue arose in my mind with respect to the PM’s announcement that his government was going to accept all the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee—and, if my memory serves me right—they are up into the 90’s!  Again, that mix of spontaneity and populism.  Again, what seems like a serious lack of due diligence. All 90+ without careful analysis, even before he was enthroned?  I loved and still love the composition of his Cabinet, assuming that the Ministers are all fully qualified, but even that I am beginning to wonder in view of this pattern of spontaneity and populism without due diligence. Did he and his advisers possibly practice ethnic and tribal politics by glad handing Canada’s various races and religions, including recent immigrant arrivals as well as more settled non-Caucasians?  In view of already mentioned instances of seeming spontaneity and populism, the question of due diligence refuses to go away, even though I have no doubt that there are people worthy of cabinet appointments among all of us.  Once you have the suspicion of lack of due diligence, rightly or wrongly, you begin to look for it everywhere. 

Andrew Coyne’s Take

I have great respect for Andrew Coyne, one of Canada’s most prominent and, perhaps, most popular political commentators in both Canadian press and TV.  He recently published an opinion column under the title “Maximum political mileage with minimum thought.” The subtitle was “Promises: After three months in office, Trudeau big on smiles and symbolism but short on substance” (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 6, 2016).  Wow! Coming from Coyne, this is like a bomb shell. Under a picture of a smiling, waving Trudeau, the editor comments “A tendency ‘to announce policy first, then figure out the consequences later’ is the modus operandi of PM Justin Trudeau’s government….” 

In case you haven’t caught on yet, I want it understood that the suspicions I am airing are pre-Coyne. That is to say, they were raised in my mind before I read any commentator on the subject. They popped up immediately I first read about the 25,000. But Coyne strongly confirmed these suspicions and he buttresses them with more facts at his fingertips than I can muster.  So, with your permission, here’s a little more of Andrew’s take. I promise that tomorrow I will move on to another subject.

Apart from their tragic content, namely a seemingly light-hearted playing with the destiny of 34 million plus people, Coyne’s article contains so many pithy and humorous quotables, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Here are some samples about Trudeau’s government:

It is one part not being Stephen Harper, one part symbolic gesture, one part wriggling out of campaign promises, and one part saying yes to everybody. … Get used to it.

For a government that makes much of its…forward-looking credentials, the Trudeau crew are unusually obsessed with digging up the recent past. The platform itself was filled with promises (my colleague, Bill Watson, puts the number at 50) to reverse this or that Conservative initiative.  … What was common to all was their relentless symbolic focus, achieving maximum political mileage for least expense.   

Is it to be supposed that the “evidence-based” party had any research to support its claim to be able to safely admit 25,000… refugees… by December?

Referring to the announcement of a tax increase for high incomers that would precisely offset a tax decrease for the “middle tax bracket,” Coyne asks, “Was there any basis for the party’s claim?” The original $3 billion income from the increase was subsequently whittled down to $1 billion.  Any basis?

Of course not: they gave…about the same amount of thought as Trudeau did in announcing…that he would implement all 94 of (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s) recommendation. Which is about twice as much thought as he and his advisers gave to the implications of abolishing party caucuses in the Senate. Or, for that matter, than they gave to their pipeline policy.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to refrain from just reproducing Coyne’s entire article, but I have to watch copyright restrictions and may already have transgressed them.  I plead for mercy from the Vancouver Sun on the grounds that I am such a strong advertiser for them apart from being part of that rare breed of remaining loyal paper subscribers.

Coyne does not relent. Two weeks later, he published another article entitled “Liberals fooled by their own image” with the subtitle “Broken promises: This Trudeau government says one thing and does the other at the same time”  (Feb. 20, p. B2), also loaded with gems:  “It is one thing to say one thing and do another in sequence. But to do both at the same time is deeply worrying.”  But be comforted; things are not as bad as they could be. Andrew writes that he would not go as far as therapist Evan Solomon, who describes Trudeau “as a kind of psychopath, alternatively charming (‘the romantic’) and homicide (‘the killer’). I think…he poses no danger to anyone but the economy. Still a number of recent incidents give one pause.” And then comes another litany of examples.

If Andrew does not relent, I will, right here, before the temptation overpowers me. I am no politician, but I do recognize political irresponsibility when I see it, at least this brazen variety of it. And this is not a political column, but I have stated somewhere in the past that social responsibility is one of my trademarks that comes straight out of my Christian convictions. When I see that, whether political or not, I get my dander up high and mighty. I need time to cool off. See you next time.

P.S.--It’s February 28, 2016. Today the announcement was made that Canada received the quota of 25,000 refugees.  

Post 94 Trudeau: Due Diligence? (1)

Religion and Politics

"Religion and politics" is such a huge subject that it will never be exhausted, no matter how many tomes or conferences are devoted to it. Though it is the subject for a couple of initial paragraphs in this post, it is not our main subject today.

Post 93 deals with what might be considered a “purely” religious and spiritual topic:  Ash Wednesday.  And now, immediately, right after it a dive into politics?  Federal politics even?  That will seem like an awfully wide leap to some, from the sublime to the shady.

Actually, it’s not as big a leap as you may think.  “Purely” religious or spiritual topics are meant to improve your relations with God and man—your neighbor, as per the name of this blog. And it is with this improved or strengthened relationship with both God and your neighbor that you then go forth into the world of culture, including politics. Anyone with poor or absent relations with God or neighbor is likely to pursue unhealthy politics, being guided by all sorts of shady motives and unhelpful worldviews.

So, here I am, unabashed and unapologetic for this move from high spirituality to high politics—that of our Prime Minister (PM).  That’s as high as you can go in our country—but perhaps at the same time as low!  You can go either way. The lowest motives may be the most dominant at the highest or vice versa.

I should hasten to indicate my awareness that the PM of Canada is not the Head of State and that, officially, his is not the highest status, which is reserved for the Governor General, who is appointed by his “inferior,” the PM.  True, but the PM certainly is the highest in terms of political power, influence and responsibility.

PM Trudeau and Due Diligence

My question is whether our new PM is doing due diligence.This question arose first arose during his campaign before Trudeau was “enthroned.” I’ve had no reason to put my mind at ease on this score and note that I am by no means the only one to have a suspicion here. From before his installment to the end of his hundred honeymoon days, I have detected a consistent pattern that keeps the question at the forefront.

Before proceeding, though, I want to praise the PM for some of his earliest actions that delighted my soul. The first one was the composition of his Cabinet. His 50-50 gender cabinet appointments. The second was his racial or ethnic inclusiveness, also in the context of the Cabinet. That was just such a refreshing change from history.  There was his “march” to the Governor General’s mansion in the company of his cabinet, all on foot instead of an ostentatious automobile entourage. And then there was his unfeigned and spontaneous reaction to the unexpected meeting with his daughter who ran into her parents arms during that march. It was all so delightful and different. I initially accepted it all in pure delight. This was going to be a different PM, no doubt about it. The MacLean’s cover photo of the surprised look of the Prime Ministerial couple upon seeing their young daughter run into their arms is pinned to a wall in our apartment. It’s bound to become a classic.

Spontaneity vs Due Diligence

That pattern of seeming spontaneity continued on. With the tremendous pressure of Syrian refugees dominating the news towards the end of the PM’s campaign, he bravely announced that Canada would welcome 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015, a period of just a couple of months. How spontaneous was that?  Or was it?  You may remember previous posts on this blog on the subject of refugees. I pointed out that even under more normal circumstances, those responsible for vetting refugees admitted that it is virtually impossible to do it thoroughly according to established protocol, let alone under the pressure of the moment.  25,000 within the space of a couple of months? I loved the sentiment behind it. But was it feasible to do it within the protocol?  I judged “no.”  Not possible. Only if various steps were ignored or omitted, even if those chosen would already have been vetted by the UN.  Canadian officials sent to the Middle East to sort them out would hardly be capable of reading between the lines of the oral and written claims of Third World refugees, whose logic, culture, religion and, not to forget, their interests are so radically different from their own. 

Populism vs Due Diligence 

The question of due diligence bubbled to the surface. Was this true spontaneity, genuine spontaneity?  Does spontaneity exclude or bypass due diligence?  Of course, the PM himself recognized his decision for what it was and moved the deadline for the 25,000 forward several times. Or was this populism?  That is, playing on the emotions of the public that was exposed regularly to the pitiful scenes of hordes of refugees, women, children and the elderly, making their way across seas and land borders in their search for safety. Playing on their emotions without doing due diligence?  And let the chips fall where they may?  Like spontaneity, populism, that is, listening to the hearts of the people is good democracy, but not without due diligence.  It is the duty of our politicians to listen to the people and to practice due diligence at the same time.

(To be continued in Post 95)