Born Human…Christian by Choice (Part 2)

One of the mantras I often heard as a boy (without really understanding) is, “In the world but not of the world.” Unfortunately, some Christian families become so worried about the world and its influence that they attempt to almost cloister their children or they live a segregated lifestyle within their own communities. This, in itself, can be problematic and often the children really aren’t adequately equipped to make sound decisions – sometimes leading to a kind of “syndrome” where the young people leave and then “go wild.”

Some teachings, along this vein, seem even contradictory as reflected in the title of two popular hymns I learned while growing up: “This World Is Not My Home” and “This Is My Father’s World.” Another contradictory message (for me anyway) concerns how some groups can so thoroughly condemn “the flesh” and all its “evil desires” – sometimes even to the extent of abusing their bodies in various ways - only to also embrace the teaching that our bodies are the temple of God and we are to lovingly and reverently care for them. In other words, the concept of “the flesh” isn’t really very well understood leading to various distortions – sometimes even to self-abuse.

So when there seems to be contradiction and/or differing points of view, how does one resolve them? If you start from the viewpoint that there really is continuity and harmony within the basic message of Christianity, then anything that seems to be a contradiction must be looked at (along with how we’ve come to understand or interpret it) within the context of how it’s messaged within and throughout the Bible.

First, I’ve come to believe this is indeed my Father’s world. He created it and we all are born into it – and therefore are part of it (in other words, we are indeed “of this world”). As Christians, we are directed (through Christ’s teachings) that we must be “born again.” It would be during the process of being born again that we affirm the “new” self which, born of the spirit, is no longer “of this world.” Even then, we must continue living each day “in the world” and by knowing this fact we are also aware that our years remain counted and limited.

In the fall of mankind as outlined in Genesis 3, Adam is sentenced to work the earth and live by the sweat of his brow. Further, he was denied access to “the tree of life” and this would ultimately lead to his death returning him to the earth (dust to dust). I read this as meaning that his choice determined what followed - he would be restricted to a limited lifespan that was sustained strictly by means of what this world could provide. Once access to the tree of life was blocked, everything else was insufficient to sustain him beyond a limited time.

Not only did Adam have to die, his very DNA (fashioned by the Creator Himself) has become just a shadow of what it would have been back in the Garden of Eden - after countless replications. Whatever it is that the tree of life supplied, thousands of years of harvesting and working the earth have failed to supply our DNA with that missing life-sustaining element... nevertheless, we must continue to work in “the world” if we want to eat and live out what days we do have.

The idea of being ‘in this world not of this world’ appears in several places in scripture. John 17 is perhaps one of the more thought of texts where the idea appears. Here, it is part of a prayer where Christ was asking His Father for the continued protection of His disciples after He (Christ) would leave this world. In that same prayer verse (15) He asks His Father, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.” Even though the battle (as well as man’s redemption) had been won, He wished that the Father keep the faithful living here, on this world. There is a reason and work for each to do – then and now. Part of His message is that there will be a time when this world will ultimately be recreated and made new... after going through a series of events still to come.

When I think about Christ’s prayer (I just referenced) in light of everything else, there is consistency that goes from creation through to today. Man was created with the unique gift (and responsibility) of having a free will – not only was he given the ability to choose, but also the right to choose. Man was created to live by the choices he makes and the resulting consequences (then and now). Physically, our choices relate to the world we are in and, as a consequence, a part of. Spiritually we also make choices and I think it is at this level where we decide if we are a part of the kingdom of this world or God’s kingdom. This was the case with the apostles and it remains so today.

Every need or want that we have, including a need for fun, relaxation, enjoyment etc, is met each day by the choices we make from the world in which we find ourselves – that is inescapable. It is our responsibility to choose wisely, moment by moment, day by day. I am in this world, I live day to day choosing from the things of this world (my Father’s) that I have need of, however spiritually, I have chosen to be Christian and part of God’s kingdom.

Born Human…Christian by Choice (Part 1)

As I look back on my life’s journey, I can see where I’ve made all sorts of detours in a trip toward some destination…a destination about which there has been very little agreement.  Today, as I check my internal compass, I recognize the path I’m now on as one that bears a striking resemblance to a path I abandoned as a young man in my early twenties.  Like most detours, there is movement toward the destination but the route is not the most direct and the scenes along the way are not always what one had hoped or planned for.  It’s been an interesting journey and along the way I’ve learned quite a few things – some the hard and painful way.

For awhile I followed a path that was strictly prescribed for me.  I was shown and taught to follow a road that had a “heaven” as its final destination.  Everything I needed to know: how I should behave, what I should do, not do or avoid - the whole works - was all laid out for me to follow.  Well I followed it for a while – initially with an enthusiasm that gradually diminished as I approached my twenties.  Slowly I came to realize that (perhaps because of my perception) it was going to be a long, boring, miserable journey; and I wasn’t at all sure I wanted to go to a place that sounded like just more of the same.

Exit that road and on to another - but what was at the end of this new road I’d gotten on?  I figured it was where the journey ultimately ends and you die - fade to black – trips over – no refunds.  After travelling that route for a while, I found it also had its share of boredom and misery plus the ultimate question that needs answering, “What’s the point?”  Now the journey could begin in earnest...because finding answers to that question became the “point.”  Exploration and discovery became prime motivators on a journey that was becoming interesting again.

At that point, as I followed the path I was on, the detour headed back toward the cross and my becoming Christian once again.  I’ve already written more about this elsewhere and won’t repeat it all here but suffice it to say I wasn’t moved by some strong emotional experience or miraculous event, rather I was gradually moved by some simple questions that were born within me, and the answers I found.  As those answers began to accumulate, the full realization of what I was starting to get a glimpse of was (and remains) awesome.

And so now, for me at least, the question becomes why take the detour in the first place – and IF I would have known what I know now, would I have taken it or would I have tried a more direct route?  If I’m honest, I think I’d have to say there are only a few things that I would change.  I don’t believe I could have arrived at the point I’m at today without the detour and the lessons I’ve learned along that path.  I also believe those lessons have a role to play in my life i.e. lessons and tests that are yet to come.

Like everyone else, my choices in life are based on thoughts and feelings.  These two factors apply not only to what I think and feel about current circumstances but also what can I do about changing those circumstances if I wish to think and feel differently.  In my early twenties I realized I was dissatisfied and didn’t like where I was - I wanted to experience some pleasure, excitement and enjoyment that had been incompatible with, and forbidden by, a particular religious point-of-view and upbringing.   If I continued to follow that same path, other than get older, nothing else was likely to change.

Now before I go any further, I want to be very clear: I DO NOT view all Christians as being the same therefore I DO NOT want to paint them all with the same brush.  However, that being said, impressions that one forms about any group are generally based on those individuals or representatives you meet from within that group.  I know there are many, many happy Christians and have met huge numbers of them, but (despite protestations to the contrary) I’ve also witnessed an almost joyless reality that has become the identity of far too many Christians that I’ve known or met over the years.  With a sombre and subdued outlook on all things they regard as “worldly,” these folks seem to make it a point to focus on all the ‘sinful’ things those around them (especially the young people) are engaged in.  After a relatively benign and happy early childhood, many of the young people are sometimes quickly thrust into a world full of “shall not’s” and “do not’s.”

For some, the world is presented as a terrible and dangerous place where almost anything appealing to the senses must be either avoided or participated in with restraint and/or some measure of guilt.  Somehow many have bought into the idea that sin is fun (or exciting) while virtue and Christian values are bereft of happiness, joy and fun.  This may help explain why shortly after experiencing a really fun and enjoyable time, guilt begins to creep in.  Joy has been (falsely) equated with sin.

(Part 2 to follow)

Thoughts on Golden Rule(s)

The Golden Rule is sometimes known as the “ethic of reciprocity” and it can be found in the teachings of nearly every religion.  Often regarded as possibly the most concise and general principle of ethics, it can also be seen as a motivating principle in many successful, non-religious businesses.  In fact, most people can quote the “Golden Rule” - or something very close to it.

For Christians it reads, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)  This rule is commonly expressed in many different instances, and by a wide variety of folks, as “Treat others the way you would like to be treated.” 

From the Christian perspective, there are a number of statements attributed to Jesus that serve to elaborate upon this rule.  One such comment is, "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)  Another example is the answer given by Jesus as he responded to the question, “which is the greatest commandment in the law?”  His answer was, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

OK, so what exactly does this mean; and just what am I getting at here?  At first glance this whole concept, this “golden rule” seems to be pretty simple and straight forward.  However, as often as I may have heard it discussed or preached about, I’ve never been completely satisfied with most of what I’ve heard.  It’s not that the interpretations (I’ve heard) have been way off track; rather it is more that they’ve somehow been incomplete.  I believe the Golden Rule, and the statements related to it, contain tremendous potential that is too often missed.  I believe this is the case because of assumptions that are easily overlooked and/or not discussed.  Please notice that ALL of these biblical statements include a reference to the self and the assumptions concern how we value and treat others vis-à-vis our own self.

There is a presumption that we (ourselves) would want to be treated in a manner that would be, good, kindly, generous, respectfully, honest etc - as a measurement for how to treat others.  Life experience has taught me, however, that a good number of people do not feel worthy of this kind of treatment.  Still others will decline offers of kindness or help and see it as somehow something they should be prepared to give but never receive.  However, I can’t find any evidence (in my reading of the Golden Rule - or related texts) that this is how we should be relating to others.

There is a very simple math formula that says: If A=B and B=C then A=C.  Sometimes I think a critical part of that formula gets overlooked.  Consider that A) I am to love others as God has loved me and I am to treat them as I want to be treated.  B) Others have been given the same direction as have I (as to how they are to love and treat me – their neighbour).  Therefore C) would be: I am to love and treat myself in the same way as I am to treat/love others and as they are to treat/love me.

Yesterday as I was driving in the car, this question suddenly popped once again into my awareness and again I thought about it.  I thought of many of the folks I’ve met who are very much into a “do for others” mindset and I thought of some of the distorted views of “service to others” I’ve come across.  Clearly we are directed to do for others but I’d argue that it does not say, “to the complete denial of one’s self.”  Indeed, the way we are directed to do for others is based upon our own self-worth and the love and treatment we would have for that self. 

Those folks that would abide by the Golden Rule and who engage in various forms of self-flagellation (physical or mental), total self-denial or extreme self-sacrifice should not presume to do the same unto me.  This does not reflect the way I would want to be treated.  However, because of how I would want to be treated, I would rather demonstrate qualities like joyful generosity, encouragement, confidence & self-worth, peace, physical-comfort etc.

In conclusion, even though it’s been said before – it’s worth repeating (and cogitating on); If one is to truly love and care for others, they must first love and care for them-self.

Life…The Next Chapter

Among the many kinds of books, that fascinate some folks, are those classed as Memoirs or Autobiographies.  Usually those books are written later in one’s life (as times and events - now passed are recalled).  In reading such books, it is easy to get caught up in the thought, “I wish my life was……” as we relate to the experiences of the author.  What we perhaps need reminding of is that whether or not the events of our life are put to pen and paper, nevertheless we are writing our own story daily. 

Each day that we’re given, we begin a new page and each major event marks a new chapter.  For some, the chapters may be lengthy but few in number while for others there will be many more chapters with fewer pages in each.  Ultimately some books may end up a tragedy while others a comedy…but the bottom line is that we each get to write something in that book every day.

When there is a major life event, and before a new chapter is begun, there may be a number of pages where very little gets written.  Those pages mark time and represent (perhaps) a period of adjusting, grieving, thinking, wandering or maybe just sitting.  Very often those major events will be a loss of some kind, but they can also be the recognition of some major decision or move that needs to be made – perhaps a move of some kind or a pending career change.  As we find ourselves in those spaces of life, some time must pass…but if we remain in those spaces for prolonged periods of time, we just might find our self stuck.  The longer we are stuck, the harder it is to move forward once more - there must be a balance, a time when you shut the motor off gather, grieve, regroup or whatever…and then decide.

For me a chapter just ended not long ago when my wife and partner for almost 40 years lost her battle with cancer.  Because of the nature of her illness, there was some time to prepare for the end of that chapter.  Despite knowing and preparing, there are still many “almost empty pages” in my book.  However my book is not finished yet (and neither is Susan’s – though I believe she gets to write all her future chapters in a much nicer/better place)

Intellectually I’ve known, like most everyone else, that with the loss of a partner one must grieve and then ultimately move forward again.  This lesson must also be recognized at an emotional and spiritual level as well – and sometimes each step isn’t so clean and well defined.  Sometimes the grieving will continue while also moving forward.  Sometimes the road will get smoother but potholes will still be encountered.  This too I’m learning.

I’ve decided I want to get on with my life.  I want new people in my life and a new partner to share with.  I don’t want to spend any remaining time (that I might have) alone – and so I won’t.  I’ll always carry my history with me and I’ll always honour the many wonderful years with Susan. She wanted me to move on and would not want to see me stuck. 

So folks, I will move on and with God’s help I’ll not get stuck.  I’m going to finish this short piece with the first couple lines of a song – perhaps not a choice those who know me would think I’d make but it’s time:

“Get your motor runnin' 
Head out on the highway”

Putting God in a Box

Having been brought up within a fairly strict Christian denomination, I learned the firmly held doctrines of that particular faith. I also learned a little about some of the other (more popular) doctrines held by other major Christian denominations; doctrines they held that we did not subscribe to - and “why they are wrong.” I learned that basically the other denominations were well-meaning but misguided. This served to do several things for me:

• It helped give me an identity early in my life.

• It shaped my views on religion and why we were right while everyone else was wrong.

• It defined the view I had of God and de facto also defined the parameters of God. God was defined by emphatic statements about what He likes/doesn’t like, accepts or rejects, and how He operates in our lives vs. leaves it up to us to work out on our own, etc.; all this came from a particular view and interpretation of scripture coupled with other “inspired” writings.

• It all but insured that I’d be unlikely to show much interest in learning more about other Christian denominations because of a learned prejudice.

When I parted ways with the faith of my youth, I had to do something with all those factors and beliefs which I’ve just noted in the paragraph above. While there might have been a few viewpoints on which I might differ, and still remain comfortably within that faith, there were other points of doctrine which really could not be rejected without rejecting the whole package – and this is where I found myself. So I left and for about the next 25-30 years I cut myself off from almost all church-based religious contact. During that time I more or less drifted with where life took me.

After many years and many phases, in my life journey, I arrived at the point where I was once again interested in joining a community of Christians (a church of some sort). In order to get to this point I had to first do a lot of work and go through some struggles on my own. Early in that journey, when I questioned even the very existence of God, I thought in terms of, “Did God create us or did we create God?” At that point I was confronted with the undeniable spiritual side of man and this became my focus of study. As I studied, I found myself beginning to conceive of a God that was rather different and far greater than the god I’d learned of during my youth. Further, I began to see that I didn’t have a problem with God but rather I had a problem with a denominational god (or at least my youthful perception of God).

As I began seeking Christian fellowship, I visited several other groups and began to discover something interesting. My youthful experience could have been replicated (almost exactly) in any one of those other denominations! However, with different doctrines and teachings, “the god” that would be portrayed would therefore be different with respect to how he would act, what he wants from us, what he likes and approves of and many other defining characteristics of that faith. To put it another way, “the god” defined and presented by each denomination would be different from “the god” I was taught about in my youth. All denominations claimed to worship the same God and yet, upon comparison, presented radically different (nearly unrecognizable) pictures of Him.

This observation served to help answer one of my earlier questions, “Did we create God?” My answer is now “yes and no,” and believe it or not, this is far more satisfying for me. When we attempt to define God solely through the use of restrictive limitations AND use our faulty and limited understanding of Him as a means to deny others the freedom to be and act according to their view of Him, we have created a god. The God I am coming to know is much greater than all the denominational gods I’ve thus far been exposed to and He is far, far greater than my capacity to understand – though I sometimes may get brief glimpses of thought and fleeting insights. It occurs to me that one simply can’t take that which is Omnipotent, All Powerful, All Knowing and Almighty and put it in a box or a neat little package. Our own understanding might fit into that package but not the Subject of that understanding.

Also, in checking out various groups, I’ve observed that most of them were just as sincere and well-meaning as the group I’d left many years ago. Most of them had firmly held doctrines – some of which differed considerably from the firmly held views I’d been taught. In most cases some of those defining doctrines are beyond question and therefore form part of that groups identity. I also discovered that they were as familiar with the doctrines of my youthful church as my church had been familiar with theirs and in each case there were/are creditable biblical scholars on both sides of the question. Other Christian churches also claim the scriptures as the source for their beliefs – the difference is in how they are read and interpreted.

This brings me to the question of doctrine in general and whether or not I view it as a good thing or a hindrance. On the whole I think it is both good and necessary. Common views, values and beliefs serve to bring people together and create community. However, it is not possible for any group of people to find full agreement on all matters (significant or otherwise) and thus cracks and fragmentation begins to occur. (This, by the way, is true not only of Christian churches but also applies to all large organized interests and groups).

Almost right from its founding, the Christian church has entertained debate and disagreement on all sorts of topics – I believe this was healthy and enabled the church to grow. Some of the major debates were over rules and church law with different groups holding different views on a variety of topics. We also read how the apostles and church leaders ministered to the various groups through their letters and counsel. Groups were frequently directed back to Christ and reminded that salvation would be by grace through their faith in Him. Customs, traditions, laws etc were acknowledged but relegated to a far less important role and care was taken to prevent those things from becoming an impediment to the primary purpose which was to reveal Christ to humanity.

To me it appears we may not have learned the lesson of history and therefore we find many churches, still overly focused in matters of law and doctrine - while thinking they are simply proclaiming the Love of God. Too many approach the subject of worship in a manner that would be better suited toward selling shoes. Shoes are sold in boxes and the buyer tries to find the box which contains shoes that will fit. Boxes marked with the wrong size will not even be picked up (let alone looked into). The Christian faith, on the other hand, does not fit into any box very well and while a package containing the aspects and views of one particular Christian church may work well for some, others may find none of the packages fit.

I’ve resolved this dilemma for myself by deciding I am a non-denominational Christian and I can enjoy worship and fellowship in churches of various faiths. I agree with many – but not all – of the things those different churches value and hold true. In the meantime I’ll continue to work and study this path I find myself on. I’ll continue to make mistakes (some may even be within the text of what I’ve just written) and down the road I may see things quite differently. Before becoming too critical of these thoughts, let me assure you that I recognize I could be wrong and it wouldn’t be the first time…after all, I’m human and fallible - He isn’t.

Sacred Cows and Emperors Clothes

When I first began writing down ideas on this particular topic, our friends in the USA were in the midst of a very partisan battle over (so called) “Obamacare.” During the debate, like millions of other people, I also engaged in numerous discussions on this and other similar topics. Some of the more left-wing proponents of Obama’s plan like to point to Canada and even Cuba as a basis for changing the current US system to a more socialist system. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has handed down its ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation.

Before going any further, I just want to make it clear that I cannot speak for circumstances in Cuba (nor would I want to!) but I can offer some comments on the Canadian situation – though I am by no means an “expert.”

In one exchange of emails regarding the Canadian System of health care vs the system in the USA, I received the following comments:
“...they just released some stats down here last week and thought you might like to hear a few.... There were over 700,000 personal bankruptcy caused by medical expenses here in the US last year.... what is really surprising though is 75% of those claims had medical insurance. This was compared to less than a half of a percent of those in Canada who said they filed for Bankruptcy due to medical expenses.”

Well, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of those numbers as I’m not familiar with the report noted or the source for those figures; but regardless of how close the numbers may be they do not tell the whole tale. One would need to know (for instance) how many of those bankruptcies were exclusively the result of medical expenses vs. how many might simply have been the final debt incurred after years of poor spending choices and other mounting personal debts?

The figure noted for personal bankruptcies in the USA (caused by medical expenses) is reported at 700,000 with the vast majority claiming to have medical insurance. These same statistics were quoted to me several weeks later in discussion with another person. I happen to agree that this is a lot of people and if you happen to be one of the 700,000 it would be quite unacceptable. The thing is, I don’t think it has to be an either/or situation when it comes to the health care debate – I don’t think it has to be either a “USA style” system or a “Canadian style” system.

Statistics are deceiving and can be used by either side in any debate. For instance 700,000 is less than .002% of the US population. Further, I’d hate to hold up a system such as we have here in Canada if it could not stand up to the scrutiny of much closer examination and if it cannot meet most of the health care needs of those it is meant to serve. Something that is supposed to be free has very little value if it cannot be accessed or if access is so poor that one would rather pay for superior service.

Here in Ontario there are over 1,000,000 people who do not have a family doctor AND HAVE NO HOPE OF GETTING ONE. The population of Ontario Canada (2008) was 12,891,787 and even using figures that are four years old, this means that over 7% of Ontario’s citizens do not have (and cannot get) a family doctor. The doctor shortage is so severe (and growing) that people have given up even looking for a doctor.

Free hospitalization is of little value if it means you must spend days (sometimes weeks) on a stretcher in the emergency department because there are no beds. If you are in pain and awaiting a “free operation,” do you really want to wait a couple years for the procedure when the same procedure can be had in a couple weeks in the USA? The currency many Canadians are forced to pay in is not dollars and cents but time – and some of the sickest don’t have too much of that.

The health care system is becoming less and less about what’s in the best interest of the sick and suffering, in my opinion. Health care should really be about the patient and those trained professionals (from the various health care disciplines) best able to provide the services and care that are needed by that individual. The primary relationship is supposed to be doctor-patient, nurse-patient, therapist-client etc. with some necessary regulation to govern appropriate behaviour, expectations and professionalism in order to insure the individual gets the best treatment and care they seek. However, it is that primary relationship that is under attack (so to speak) and is vulnerable to all sorts of “middle men” because getting into the middle of that relationship can become the source of both power and profit. Worming their way into the space between health care provider and client we find insurance companies and their incestuous symbionts, the litigation lawyers. Since politicians have the power to legislate, we can usually find them in the middle as well making it cozy for themselves (and all others who have crawled into that space with them).

Now to be clear, I’m not arguing against insurance or legal representation, simply the degree and type of their involvement. Lawyers and insurance companies tend to feed each other (each creating a greater need for the other – at tremendous expense). Insurance also isolates the consumer from the expense and therefore limits the market’s ability to control costs. This being the case, other mechanisms need to be developed to help the market become competitive and hold costs to reasonable levels. Various kinds of insurance to practice could be brought way down if some form of control were brought to bear on the litigation process. If various “class action” lawsuits and other nuisance suits could not be brought forward until after legal ground to do so had been established, this would help bring down overall costs. (The legal ground would need to be something like a finding against the health care provider by either their professional governing body or through criminal proceedings.)

Instead, health care has become the currency, of those holding political office, to buy voters. For instance, why is it even necessary for former Prime Minister, Paul Martin (when he was in office and running for reelection) to say he would pass a law banning private delivery of essential health care services? Ask yourself why someone is willing to pay big bucks out of their own pocket for these services if they are already available at no cost through our (Canadian) government scheme. Why does a government have to make it an illegal activity for someone to move out of a two year line up in order to purchase the service in a much timelier manner? Health care has become Canada’s sacred cow and those on the Left (especially) are riding it as far as it will take them – consumer be dammed.

The Prodigal Son – Twenty-first Century Version

The story of “The Prodigal Son” is one I learned as a child and there is a very good chance you’ve heard it as well for it is a story that is over 2000 years old. For any who may not have heard it and who might be curious, I’ll end this short piece with a synopsis of the original story. The thought occurred to me (to write how today’s version would likely read) as I followed a particular story line in the media.

There was a fairly well off middle-class father that had two sons. One day the younger one said to his father, “Hey dad, I shouldn’t have to wait for you to die before I get my share of the estate, gimme it now and then I’m outta here.” So, despite the hurtful nature of that comment, the father divided his property and gave the younger son his half.

“Not long after that, the younger son got all his stuff together and set off for a distant country where he blew his whole inheritance on partying and wild living. After he had spent it all, there was a severe famine in that whole country, prices of everything shot way up and the young man began to be in real need. In desperation he agreed to work, for a citizen of that country, on a farm . He was given the job of feeding the pigs. The young guy was so hungry by this point that he even considered eating the pig’s food, but this time there was no one to come running to his rescue.

(Now at this point, the story changes somewhat from the original)

When he finally took a good look at his current circumstances, he said, “The old man is rich, he’s got tons of money and even his hired servants have more than me, and here I am starving to death!” He thought to himself:

“Screw this, I’m outta here. I’m going back to my father and say to him, ‘Look at the mess I’m in because of you. When you gave me that money a while ago, it wasn’t enough and now the cost of everything is going up. You ripped me off man and I want more – at least enough to live in the style I’ve become accustomed to!’” So he got up and went back to his father’s home.

While he was still some distance from home, his father learned he was coming and feeling a burst of excitement as well as a huge sense of relief, he started out to meet his wayward son. 

After a quick “Hello” and brief hug, the son started in with his demands. The son said to him, “Look at the mess I’m in because of you. When you gave me that money a while ago, it wasn’t enough and now the cost of everything is going up. You cheated me and I want more – at least enough to live in the style I’ve become accustomed to!”

The father said, “I want to help you son – and I will. First, let me explain the situation here and why I can’t meet all your demands.” The father tried to tell his son that the remaining portion of the estate was (as agreed before) to go to the older brother and therefore the father could not give any of that to him. He told him that times were tough here as well and he didn’t have any extra money to give him but he’d gladly give the young man some work to do and would provide him with a place to stay, clothing and good food to eat.

The young man felt enraged and said, “Why should I work for you? I’m entitled man. You owe me and I’m gonna get what’s mine!” He didn’t want to hear about how hard everyone else (including his older brother) was having to work to pay the bills and make ends meet – he just wanted what he figured he was owed; even if the old man had to borrow in order to give it to him.

The young man then stormed out and got a bunch of his dead-beat friends and together they all went back to his father’s home. There they all set up a huge protest and demonstration. The father tried to reason and compromise with the son but just as the son was unwilling to work for his father, he was also unwilling to compromise or consider anything except getting what he felt entitled to.

As the days progressed, the protest grew. More riffraff joined the crowd and they started to get both destructive and even violent. They set fires, destroyed property and even prevented those in the father’s home from coming and going freely. Some of the protesters took note of the fact that some of the neighbouring homes showed promise for protesting – as far as they were concerned, the problem had spread well beyond some kid and his old man. They decided to expand their extortionist ways and protest all the neighbours (who they now referred to as the “one percent”).

Unfortunately this is where the story stops because it’s still being written. How it ends…I don’t know…stay tuned…

Now, the original story goes like this:

A man who has two sons and the younger of the two asks his father to give him his portion of the estate as an early inheritance. The father gives it to him and the son then sets off on a long journey to a distant land where he wastes his fortune on wild living. After the money runs out, a severe famine hits the country and the son finds himself in dire circumstances. He takes a job feeding pigs. He is so broke that he even considers eating the food assigned to the pigs.

The young man finally comes to his senses and remembers his father. In humility, he recognizes his own foolishness, decides to return to his father and ask for forgiveness and mercy. The father who had been watching and waiting, receives his son back with compassion and open arms. He is overjoyed by the return of his lost son! Immediately the father has his servants prepare a giant feast in celebration.

Meanwhile, the older son is not one bit happy when he comes in from working the fields and discovers a party going on to celebrate his younger brother's return. The father tries to dissuade the older brother from his jealous rage explaining, "You are always with me, and everything I have is yours.” He adds that they had to celebrate the return of the younger brother, “because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

If you've read them both, you will recognize that one is a story of redemption and the other is a story of entitlement. You should be able to recognize the difference.

Where Did She Go?

I met Susan Edith Mosier in 1969 at Kingsway College. She was fifteen, I was sixteen and we dated steadily for the next three years. Among our friends there are a number, I’m sure, who can recall this budding romance. With all the functions and activities, choir practices and tours, there was scarcely enough time for school and classes. We were together as much as possible and three years later, in 1972, we made a lifetime commitment to each other as we took our vows in marriage.

There were many who, out of love, expressed their concern that we were much too young to be making such a commitment and they feared that it would not last. Ours was not anywhere close to being a perfect union and many times (especially in the earlier years) we went through times when we thought it might not last. Both of us did and said things, at times, that we would later regret but through the fights and the make-ups, through the good times and bad we always chose to remain together and our love reached a depth I couldn’t have imagined as a 16 year old kid.

Just a very short time ago, on January 5, 2012, we had to say our final good-bye as cancer took her life and robbed her of her of any remaining years. Susan fought hard with much courage and dignity but the disease was aggressive and cruel. Many friends and family fought the battle with her and she drew strength from all who lent it through their prayer, kind thoughts and encouraging comments and wishes. While the cancer ultimately proved fatal, death is not - and cannot be – the final victor. While I miss her now (terribly) I plan on someday catching up with her once again.

As I sit and ponder all this and what has transpired over the past four months, I’m filled with a number of questions and a variety of conflicting raw emotions. I feel pain and sorrow, as my eyes repeatedly fill with tears. But I am also able to laugh with friends as we recall some of the humorous moments we all shared with Susan. When I see the expressions of love from so many people who knew her, I am humbled and grateful. As I begin to realize that God’s love for Susan is even greater than my love for her and the love of all her friends combined, I begin to experience a sense of comfort and peace.

Susan had fifty-eight years between her very first breath and her very last breath. When I was standing at her side, after she was gone, I thought about those 58 years. Something had been completed that day; she had written the final chapter in the book of Susan. I know how profoundly she had touched me and my life, as she lived that book, and I know from the testimony of many others how she had touched them. When talking with friends and family, I realize there are special chapters which she shared with them that I never knew – for they were not meant for me – and I begin to get a glimpse of just how complex a person she really was. That which she shared with me over a period of 42 years was volumes…and yet she was so much more than that; her life and work went so much further.

During the last few months of her journey she focused mostly on Danny and me – to prepare us for when she was gone. She decided she would battle the cancer for as long as she could but she also knew her time was short and she decided she wasn’t going to waste any of it by getting negative, angry or complaining. She said she wanted to use her remaining time being with and enjoying her family as much as possible. She took time and spent valuable energy teaching us and making sure we could carry on the various necessary household tasks that, up till then, she had always done. She taught us how to cook and prepare various meals. Many a conversation began with, “When I’m gone, you and Dan will need to …”

On December 14, after spending a week in hospital, Sue was due for discharge home. She had gotten very ill that morning and so the doctor decided to keep her in hospital for an extra day and discharge her on December 15 (her birthday). That evening when I went to visit her, I discovered there was to be a Christmas celebration in the main cafeteria. They were going to be lighting the lights, welcoming the Christmas season and several groups were going to put on a small concert. Susan felt well enough to go and so she got her walker and off to the cafeteria we went. I didn’t know then that I would only have 22 more days with her.

One of the groups at the concert was a women’s choir and they sang, “Song For A Winters Night” by Gordon Lightfoot, as sung by Sara McLachlan. As they were singing, Susan tucked her arm in mine and began to hold tightly. I looked at her and saw she was sobbing and her face was wet with tears. I asked her if she was alright – did she need to go back to the ward? She said no, that she was OK … she said, “It’s the song, I know the song.”

I’ll end this here with the words of that song to follow. Susan’s loving husband, Roger Hild


Song For A Winters Night - by Gordon Lightfoot
“The lamp is burning low upon my table top
snow is softly falling
the air is still in the silence of my room
I hear your voice softly calling

If I could only have you near
to breathe a sigh or two
I would be happy just to hold the hands I love
on this winters night with you

Smoke is rising in the shadows overhead
my glass is almost empty
I read again between the lines upon each page,
the words of love you sent me

If I could know within my heart
that you were lonely too
I would be happy just to hold the hands I love
on this winters night with you

The Fire is dying my lamp is growing dim
shades of night are lifting
morning light steals across my window pane
where webs of snow are drifting

If I could only have you near
to breathe a sigh or two
I would be happy just to hold the hands I love
on this winters night with you
And you'll be once again with me”

No Problem

“Thank you so much for your help.”

“Not a problem”
“Thanks for doing that, I really appreciate it”
“Hey, no problem”
OK, so I guess the problem’s mine

…or at least it qualifies as a pet peeve...but whatever happened to “You’re welcome?” I’ll grant you that a, “no problem” is possibly marginally nicer than a hearty, “whatever,”…but not by too much.

When someone has helped me, the appreciation I express is genuine. Sometimes my “thank you” isn’t enough to express the depth of my gratitude - and so I’ll make an extra effort to let the other person know that I’m very thankful for their assistance. In days gone by, the reply might have been, “my pleasure” (as in, “it was my pleasure to help you”) or “You’re welcome (to the help).

These days the reply simply implies that I’m not a problem (yet) but somehow it kinda leaves me feeling cold and wondering if I should replace my thanks with something else. Perhaps something along this line:

Me: (After asking for assistance with something) “So, was that a problem for you?”

Them: “Hey, no problem”

Yeah, that kinda works……….

Our State Religion (or…The Devil’s in the Progressive Details)

In studying apparent trends in our culture, I am very concerned about the direction in which we are headed. It occurs to me that the main objective of the Liberal-left has become the removal our our basic personal freedoms and God-given rights in order to replace them with state granted entitlements, “privileges” and virtue signalling pronouncements. Individual freedoms... in fact individualism itself, is an anathema to them. It seems they would much prefer we all simply become the societal organism and collective mind. Freedom of speech therefore – in a liberal world – becomes freedom to speak in a state defined politically correct manner, so long as it: 

a) doesn’t offend anyone, 

b) pronounces the “truth” as determined by the state, 

c) doesn’t contain any state determined “hate” language, “triggers” or “code” and 

d) meets all other necessary, to-be-determined, state regulations. 

To control individual speech even further, the liberal mind sets aside numerous groups determined by special interest, race, gender and “victim” status. To such groups are granted special status for treatment, politically correct speech and commandeered concepts (such as a redefined view of bullying and hate). All this to insure such special status can never be questioned while any contrarian personal values and views can be vilified. 

The right to worship and freedom of religion (in a liberal world) becomes the “privilege” to decide which church you may attend (if you must) and beyond that, matters of conscience will be determined by the state. Your children are no longer your own because now the state has declared themselves a co-parent and they will determine how the child will be raised, what they must be taught (socially – not just academically) and what they must believe so that they can all one-day become good little socialist liberals. 

What has happened, at this point in our history, to create such a strong embrace of left-wing Marxist ideology? It is my opinion that this move toward socialist liberalism is no overnight phenomenon but has been orchestrated with much planning. The move, to the left, has been accompanied by venomous attacks (on personal freedoms and individual rights) and repeated attempts to demonize a capitalist system that, over the years, has supported a high degree of financial freedom and prosperity. I believe there may be several answers to my question but suspect that a major motivation is the desire to move all power, control and wealth away from the individual and place it in the hands of the state which will then give those in central control an almost god-like power and control. That’s my opinion – what’s yours?