Road Ahead (Part 2)

For a significant portion of my life, especially prior to 2012, many people knew me as a dog trainer and the owner of Tsuro Dog Training. Others (within the world of pure-bred dogs) knew me, along with my wife Susan, as breeders, exhibitors and dog-owners that attended and participated in numerous dog shows throughout much of Ontario and parts of the United States. For roughly thirty years most of our social life, our friends and our free time centered on breeding, showing, trialling, travelling and attending dog focused events and related activities.

Moving into the present and jumping ahead three years finds me having very little involvement in what (at one time) made up the major part of my life. As I prepare to close the dog training business, I'm struck by just how much has changed in a relatively short period of time. There has been a reordering of many of my interests, a huge change in things I have a passionate interest in and an almost complete adjustment of my priorities.

The evolution of these changes has been brewing for quite some time. At first I tried to just put things off for awhile and deny the decisions and changes I would have to ultimately make. Even after resolving the issues in my own mind and discussing the processes with those closest to me, I still resisted announcing the changes and moving forward. My recent announcement that I would be closing Tsuro Dog Training caught some by surprise but others had guessed and anticipated this was coming.

After Susan and I had jointly invested about thirty years of effort and energy into our joint passion for working with dogs, this path we’d been on was to come to a sudden and unexpected halt in just a few short months. In late summer of 2011 Susan became ill with gallbladder cancer and four months later – on January 5, 2012 she passed away. During that short period of time, as we battled her illness and tried to come to grips with what the future might hold, we quickly made provisions for our dogs and set aside all our other plans and pursuits.

I’ll not attempt to describe the actual process of grieving and adjusting – but anyone who has lost a most valued loved-one knows something of what that’s like. At some point, after she was gone and I was trying to decide where to go from there, I thought about picking up what we had set aside and getting on with that. Trouble was, there just was not the interest…oh, I could do the work…I just didn’t want to…“maybe it’s still too early,” I thought.

Several months after Susan's passing, I tried describing the process in which I felt caught. In a short piece called, “Road Ahead,” I attempted to describe the contemplation of unexpected endings and uncertain new beginnings.

“So you’re travelling along – sometimes, barely paying attention – when out of nowhere, life happens. Well, you stop (you’ve kinda’ been forced to)… oh, and you also wake up.

So now you’re sitting and waiting till its time to start moving again. How long do ya have to wait? I don’t know. Life is like that – sometimes you get to set the pace and sometimes the pace sets you.

OK, its time. Time to start moving again… but not on the road you’ve been travelling. Nope, ’cause you see, that road is now closed – permanently. You’ve still got numerous possibilities open before you – just one road has been closed… oh, and you can’t go back. But wait, all my plans lay along that road and that’s where I thought my destination was… and now I find out the bloody road’s closed.

How ‘bout the road beside it, where’s that one go?
Don’t know…”

What’s on that road?
Don’t know that either.

Well then, how’m I supposed to choose?
Good question.

Can I just sit here for a while and figure this one out?

Sure – but know this, the answer ain’t where you’re sitting – sooner or later you’ll have to begin moving.

Think I might need some help with this one. Think I’ll close my eyes and ask. This might take awhile.”

Since writing that, life has indeed moved forward; it always does. But in making an attempt to get moving again, I went through several starts and stops. In trying to go back to several things I’d always enjoyed in the past, I was only able to confirm, “you can’t go back.” In trying to revive past interests, I discovered many of my interests had changed. Many of those activities were actually things I had enjoyed doing as part of a couple and now they no longer held the same interest for me. Other personal interests and pursuits I’d enjoyed in the distant past seemed worthy of renewed exploration.

One thing that became clear was that I did not wish to remain alone and so I joined “Christian Mingle” through which I met several great people and experienced a number of new opportunities and possibilities. Christian Mingle was also the vehicle through which I ultimately met Brenda – the lady who was to become my new wife. Meeting someone new (when you are both in your 60’s) is a very interesting experience because both people bring a life-time of learning and experiences to the new relationship – and the challenge is to somehow fit these two lives together. When you are young and still growing and developing, you come together and grow; whereas when you are older, you have pretty much finished growing as an individual and must somehow try to fit together instead. With our new marriage, besides the interests Brenda and I already had in common, came a whole host of new pursuits and possibilities to explore together.

An area that has become increasingly important to me is my spirituality and rediscovering my Christian faith. Even before Susan had become ill, I had begun searching for something that was missing in my life…something that I thought I had left behind me many years ago. While I may have abandoned God, I began to realize He had never abandoned me and as I began to grow and change spiritually, I began to find a peace I’d not known before – in fact this peace helped me through a very dark period as we battled through Susan’s terminal illness. This one element has continued to grow in importance to the point that it has become the lens through which I view my existence and all the other items I may choose to include in my life.

So what happened to Roger the dog trainer? Well, in a sense, he served a purpose and he's moved on. Whatever he might have been, the plans and the passion (that sustained him) have gone - and he along with them. Oh he tried picking up what he had laid down, tried getting back into the dog stuff and discovered what he had suspected...the desire was no longer there. Instead of looking forward to the next appointment and next dog/client challenge, he found they were getting in the way – as he hoped instead for that call to say they were having to cancel. Might he ever return? Perhaps...I just don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I still have and value my old friends and I'm not likely to forget where I've come from or all that mattered to me up to this point. I still like dogs and have several of my own. I still am seeing a few clients (though I've greatly reduced my availability) and I really enjoy the people I see; I like talking to and helping dog owners. While I find I no longer am interested in working with dogs, as I once did, and I no longer have the passion for building and working the business, I will probably continue meeting the occasional dog owner on a consultation basis and may still agree to work with former clients. However, any efforts I may make in attempting to help others with their dog will not be as a result of owning and operating a business.

As for me...I've moved further along the newest road I've chosen and thus far I've discovered some new people, new experiences and new sources of joy and happiness. Among the interests that have begun taking precedence in my life are certain kinds of travel, study (particularly as it relates to my faith) and connecting with other travellers on a similar journey. Of one thing I am certain, this road we're on does not end on this earthly plane; it continues on into the eternal tomorrow.

Golden Calves

There is a very well known story about a “Golden Calf” that I first heard when I was a child. Even now, in my mind’s eye, I can still see the book and pictures depicting this shiny golden calf surrounded by people dancing about with their hands high in the air. The story concerned the Israelites, their liberation from slavery and their worship of a “Golden Calf.” I hadn’t thought of this story at all until it came to mind just recently in a way I had not considered before. Somehow this story came to mind in a way that seemed both timely and relevant. The story is found in Exodus 32 and goes something like this:

The children of Israel had just come out of Egypt where they had been slaves for about 400 years. God heard their cries of suffering and provided for their deliverance through Moses.

During their time in Egypt the Israelites were likely much more aware of the gods of the Egyptians than they were of the God of their patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Indeed they may have begun to doubt the existence of the God of their fathers because Moses anticipated some hard questions from them (Exodus 3:13). To help Moses prove the existence and power of God, he was given a number of miraculous signs which would help the Israelites believe. After all of these miracles were done, including the ten plagues on the Egyptians, the Israelites left Egypt and began their journey with a renewed belief in the Lord God.

Very soon after leaving Egypt, they passed through the Red Sea on dry land. The pursuing Egyptian army, hot on their heels, was drowned trying to catch and recapture them. They then journeyed on to Mount Sinai to receive God’s laws.

Despite all the miracles and recent events leading up to their release from Egyptian bondage, Israel was quick to turn away from YHWH who had freed them. Soon after Moses left them to briefly go up on the mountain and receive God's laws, the people became increasingly anxious. Moses spent forty days (Exodus 24:18) up on the mountain with God and while he was there the people urged Aaron, their temporary leader, to make gods for them to follow.

At their urging, Aaron took the gold earrings they had brought from Egypt, and melted them down to make a golden idol. The idol he crafted for them was a calf, but Aaron maintained the name of the Lord in connection with it (Exodus 32:4&5). In so doing, he was merging the pagan practices they were familiar with, and the worship of the God they were just beginning to be re-acquainted with. When the people saw the calf Aaron made, they were elated and began worshipping it and crediting it for their deliverance. They were saying things like, Israel these are your gods — the ones who led you out of the land of Egypt.

So, what prompted me to remember this story and want to re-examine it after so many years? This after all, was just another story about idol worship (there are many in the Old Testament). How might this story be relevant today? On those past occasions when I’d heard the story, my focus had always been on the item itself (the calf) and not on the determined effort invested in first creating and then worshipping such an object (or idea). However, this time I felt prompted to look past the object and to consider the process and principles at work instead. How does a “Golden Calf” come to be… and can that somehow relate to life today?

The process I’m speaking of, is the passionate rejection of God, combined with re-attributing all He has created and declared, to other sources or authorities. In my opinion, there is a very determined world view which is prepared to invest extraordinary effort to destroy, pervert and/or undermine anything God formed or ordained. In fact it seems that throughout history, when it comes to the subject of God, there has been much more going on than simply a disagreement of beliefs. There has always been a zealously determined effort to deny, discredit, falsify, and/or eliminate God from all earthly equations. Often those who simply believe in Him, His created works, or His expressed will and values, have faced hostility (or worse). Such a hostile response is way out of proportion to what one might expect over differing views or opinions. It’s much more than simply a case of, “while I believe in God and you don’t, you are free to express your views while I freely express mine.”

Throughout history and right up to the present day, persistent attempts to remove any traces or references to God continue. Indeed I believe those campaigning against God would, if they could, remove all traces of Him from our minds as well! Of course a belief in a godless universe (known as atheism) has its own “religious” component with followers determined to write God out of every equation. But to be replaced by what?… evolution?… perhaps some form of secular humanism?

As I began looking into the history of atheism and the accompanying theory of evolution, I find they are not modern in any sense of the word. These are not theories and ideas born of sophistication and scientific enlightenment. Throughout recorded history there is ample evidence of atheism and antagonism toward God (and all who believe in Him). At the same time history records plenty of efforts attempting to credit our existence to some form of evolution or anything other than Divine design.

The obvious question (to me at least) is why create this golden calf… why God-less evolution… why Darwinism? If something is believed and accepted as fact, we do not try to replace it with something else; however, when we decide to reject a previously held belief, we then are faced with the task of replacing that belief with something else… an alternate explanation.

The idea of evolution grew as a consequence of denying creation and a Creator and was put forth as an alternate explanation to the question, “If no God, then where did we come from?” Indeed, a very interesting article includes the following:

“While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations…” For more see: “Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis” http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

The same article concludes with:

“Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."” - See more at: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Darwinism didn’t emerge as the result of strict adherence to the “scientific method” or observations to which a strict scientific protocol was applied; instead it was put forth as an alternate explanation for the origin of all life. As an explanation, in my opinion, it is grasped and clung to in a manner somewhat akin to a drowning man anxiously and frantically grasping at straws.

Now, it’s not my intention to disprove evolution – there are many sound arguments that do that job already; and they are put forth by folks far more learned on the subject than me. However, I am intrigued by how tenaciously this seriously flawed theory is clung to by academia and the lengths taken to shut down any opposing viewpoints within the scientific community. Darwinism, though remaining the prevailing paradigm which has become the status quo, is a theory that has never been proven. Basically, it remains at about the same place it was when Darwin first proposed his views. Since academia has adopted this theory, no other view is seriously entertained. Discoveries harmful to the theory, particularly those that are suggestive or point toward intelligent design, are immediately dealt with by expulsion, ridicule and/or deliberate obfuscation.

In fact, within the ranks of academia, the treatment of those that challenge Darwinism has become the subject of the documentary movie, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein. In this movie Stein goes up against the status quo and the intellectual elite to expose the bias against any other form of thought that is an anathema to Darwin’s theory.

Despite the fact that this theory is now over a hundred years old, and despite the fact that it still lacks any substantive scientific proof, nevertheless academia continues to cling tenaciously and present it as “fact.” Some proponents of evolution acknowledge the fact that willingness to accept an intelligent Creator is so unpalatable they would rather cling to a flimsy unproven theory.

The following statements point to the desire to abandon the idea of a Creator and come from the article: “Why Do People Believe in Evolution?” By Bert Thompson, Ph.D. https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-to-the.pdf “…Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1917, p. ix). Henry Morris noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).

Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.”

Finally I’d like to offer the following link as something the reader might find particularly interesting when considering this particular “golden calf.” http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htm It is titled, “Why did you reject evolution” and was written by Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

It begins: “As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told…”

Dr. Briney goes on to take a closer look at the science and just how he came to the conclusions he does.

Personally I have no problem with the creation model and believe strongly that all creation points to its creator. There was a time, a point in my life when I had rejected this point of view but not any longer. If you have not come to the same conclusion, I would ask that you at least not close your mind to the possibility and then really examine the evidence. There is no question that at some point faith must come into the equation… just be careful that you are not placing your faith in a “golden calf.”

Born Human…Christian by Choice

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 perceive that 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.

Perhaps at this point I should explain something about the prescribed path I had been raised on. The religious setting into which I was born and grew up was a very legalistic, literalistic and fundamentalist denomination. Many of the normal, everyday pursuits and activities were prohibited because they would be, “against my religion.” In fact that would be the phrase used by neighbourhood friends when asking if I might be allowed to join in some planned activity. For example, they would ask something like, “Can you come with us to ______ or is that against your religion?”

So now I’d reached a decision point. 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 once again.

At that point in my journey the detour headed back toward my Christian roots. I’ve already written about this elsewhere; suffice it to say I wasn’t moved by some strong emotional experience or miraculous event. I was gradually moved by some simple questions and the answers I found. As those answers began to accumulate, the realization of what I was starting to see was (and remains) awesome.

And so now the question becomes why take the detour in the first place? If I would have known then what I know now, would I have still 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 - for the lessons and tests that are yet to come.

Like everyone else, most of my choices in life are based on thoughts and feelings. These two factors apply not only to what I think and feel about my current circumstances, but they also apply to actions I could take in order to change those circumstances and thus think and feel differently. In my early twenties I realized I was dissatisfied and didn’t like where I was. I wanted to experience and enjoy life in ways that were incompatible with, and forbidden by, my 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. That being said however, 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” and “do not.”

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.

Born Human in a Material World

As a boy, one of the expressions I often heard but never really understood is about being “in the world but not of the world.” Unfortunately, some Christian families become so worried about the world and its influences that they attempt to all but cloister their children by living a segregated lifestyle within their own communities. If excessive, this attempt by itself, can become problematic. Often such children really aren’t adequately equipped to make sound decisions outside of their protected circle. This sometimes leads to a kind of “syndrome” where the young people leave the safety of their segregated community and then “go wild.”

Some ideas to which I was exposed quite early in life even seemed contradictory as can be seen in the title of two popular Christian songs: “This World Is Not My Home” and “This Is My Father’s World.” Another message that I find contradictory concerns how some groups can so thoroughly condemn “the flesh” while they also embrace the teaching that our bodies are the temple of God and we are to lovingly and reverently care for them. Is this simply a metaphor for the internal struggles we have with ourselves sometimes? On the one hand it seems the flesh is thought of as the home of all our “evil desires” - while on the other it is a temple. In other words, the concept of “the flesh” isn’t really very well covered or understood and this can lead to various distortions – sometimes even to self-abuse; an example might be some of the actions people engage in when they decide to “mortify the flesh.”

So, when there seems to be these kinds of contradictions or differing points of view, how does one resolve them? I believe that there really is continuity and harmony within the basic message of Christianity. Such differences, along with how we’ve come to understand or interpret the subject, must be viewed within the context of how it’s messaged throughout the Bible.

First, I’ve come to believe this is indeed my Father’s world. He created it and we are all born into it. We are therefore part of it. So in other words, in one sense at least we are indeed “of this world.” As Christ taught however, we are told that we must be “born again.” It would be during the process of being born again that we affirm the “new” self, born of the spirit and destined to become a part of the new heaven and earth to come. Even then we must continue living each day in this present world. By knowing this fact, we are also aware that the years of our present life 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 i.e. 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 that was fashioned by the Creator Himself, may have been affected when access to the tree of life was blocked. One wonders if it became just a shadow of what it would have been at the time of creation; especially now after thousands of years and countless replications. Whatever it is that the tree of life supplied, thousands of years of harvesting and working the earth can not and will not supply us 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 one such passage that comes to mind where this idea appears. Here, it is part of a prayer where Christ was asking His Father for the continued protection of His disciples after He 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 requested that the Father keep the faithful living here, on this world. There is a reason for this request and work for each follower of Christ to do – then and now. Part of His message is that after going through a series of events still to come, there will be a time when this world will ultimately be recreated and made new.

When I think about Christ’s prayer 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 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. Physically, our choices relate to the world we are in and, as a consequence, also 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. It is our responsibility to choose wisely, moment by moment, day by day. I am in this world, I live day to day choosing the things I need from what is provided in this my Father’s world. However, spiritually I have chosen to be Christian and part of God’s kingdom.

Thoughts on Golden Rule(s)

 

Editor’s note (2026):
This article was written during an earlier stage of my study. While I still affirm its core concerns, later posts—especially the Strange Theology series—develop these ideas within a fuller new-covenant framework. This post is preserved here to document that part of the journey and to invite careful reflection.
_________________________________

The Golden Rule is sometimes known as the “ethic of reciprocity” and some form of it can be found in the teachings of nearly every religion. Regarded as perhaps 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) Many people simply express this rule as, “Treat others the way you would like to be treated.”

In order to study this topic more from a Christian perspective, let us begin with looking at a number of statements attributed to Jesus. These statements should help elaborate ideas which fit within this rule. One such statement that is given as a 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 the concept of the “golden rule” seems to be pretty simple and straight forward. However, I’ve never been completely satisfied with a lot of what I’ve heard in talks or discussions when this topic has been examined. 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 there is a tremendous potential to understand each other and build better relationships contained within this simply stated rule. Too often that fact is missed, in my opinion. I think this is the case because of easily overlooked assumptions we’ve made but never discussed. It is noteworthy that the biblical statements I’ve quoted, all include references to the self vis-à-vis our relationship to others. Just how are we to value, love and treat others? There is no command to “just be nice” or “just be kind” nor does it say, “just ‘love’ everyone.”

As a prescription for how we are supposed to relate to and treat others, there is the presumption about how we (ourselves) want to be treated. As followers of Christ, we are to love each other as He has loved us. This requires we be aware of how Christ has loved us. If we are to love our neighbour as ourself, requires we have love and awareness for ourself. 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 help or kindness, and somehow see it as 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 “relationship formula” which comes into play and must be considered. First, I am to love others as God has loved me and treat them as I want to be treated. Secondly, others have been given the same direction concerning how they are to love and treat me – their neighbour. Therefore, we must each be willing to accept the love and treatment directed toward us by others as we are required to show to them.

Yesterday as I was driving my car, this topic came to mind once again. I thought of the many folks I’ve met who are very much into a “do for others” mindset yet decline or wave off similar offerings of generosity and help. I thought of some of the distorted views I’ve encountered about “service to others” and what that might mean. Clearly we are directed to do for others but I’d argue that it does not say, “to deny the blessings and helpful offerings directed at one’s self.” Indeed, the way we are directed to do for others is based upon what we ourselves would want. Our own worth, love, and the treatment we would have for the self should be reflected in how we love, treat and value others. Just as our neighbour consists of all those around us, we in turn are also a neighbour of someone else. I think we sometimes allow pride to stand in the way of allowing someone else to bless us.

Those folks that would abide by the Golden Rule and yet who engage in various forms of both physical or mental self-flagellation, total lack of self-care, 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 and peace.

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 many find fascinating, 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 perhaps they represent 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 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 on an emotional and spiritual level as well; sometimes each step isn’t so clean and well defined. Sometimes the grieving will continue while also moving forward. Sometime 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 thus also defined (for me) 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. After all, why would you spend the time and effort to learn about or study other theological positions if you already had been convinced they were incorrect?

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 listed. While there may 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 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 reflect the defining characteristics of that particular faith and it would therefore be different with respect to how He would act, what He wants from us, what He likes and approves of etc. 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, Omnipresent and Omniscient 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.

In checking out various church groups, I realized 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 denominational 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 begin 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 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 and His Kingdom 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.