Moral Compasses

People are passionate creatures – we were created that way. Harness that passion and you have created a powerful force. Focus that energy through the lens of moral outrage and you have created a very potent tool. In this state of mind, reason and logic are all but irrelevant. Those involved are concerned only with the “rightness or wrongness” of the cause they face; and as long as passions remain inflamed, there can be no meaningful dialogue or resolution. None are more determined (sometimes even dangerous) than those whose passions are driven by misguided religious or moral zeal. Throughout history, this dynamic has been known and often exploited by those who understand it’s power.

A dog-training group to which I once belonged had a convention called “MCS” which stands for Moral Considerations Suspended. The idea was to encourage participation in discussion without the harsh judgments and condemnations that usually flow from moral outrage. This convention was only partially successful; some were able to abide by the request for MCS, while others could not or would not. There is no doubt that a number of topics – including discussions about the animals we keep – are often the subject of intense feelings and sometimes heated debate.

After a particularly passionate debate had devolved into arguments over whether certain books should be banned, I decided to withdraw from active participation in that particular group. In that instance what had happened was that those who wanted to simply discuss the topic at hand found themselves, and their own personal viewpoint, under attack. Specifically, others responding with passions inflamed, were critical of anyone who would even read such a thing let alone express such opinions. Such viewpoints, they proclaimed, should be banned along with any such books promoting such ideas.

At this point, rather than continuing to discuss the topic under consideration, I found myself getting ready to engage in a debate over censorship. I did not want to possibly end up spending more time and energy than I could afford, trying to reason with people that did not want to be reasoned with. They were already convinced of the moral rightness of their “cause.” Such people would not be open to listening to me or anyone else who held a view other than the one they held. Also, I did not wish to be associated in any way with a group that advocates banning books and censoring speech.

It was ironic that the timing of this particular discussion occured just a short time before the eleventh of November. Here we were talking about censorship on the eve of Remembrance Day. Had we already forgotten those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who willingly gave their lives in battle for our country? They fought in the name of freedom and recognized it for what it is – our most sacred and precious possession. They had valiantly faced tyranny and oppression so that we could speak, think and share ideas freely. Theirs was the expression, “I might not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to my last dying breath for your right to say it!”

I thought back to one of my high school teachers whose favourite expression was, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I realized how true this is. Tyrants, despots and dictators always start by removing people’s rights “for the common good.” It seems that in Canada we are being conditioned to gradually give up our individual rights and lose our freedom in order to further the causes of social engineering and political correctness.

In the discussion referred to above, the training methods and books at question were written by William Koehler, “The Monks of New Skete,” and Carol Lee Benjamin. These were the specific focus of such “moral” outrage; though various works by other writers were also proclaimed undesirable and acceptable only for the “censor’s pit.” Would today’s “enlightened” authors – those whose views today are held to as acceptable – be similarly destined for banning tomorrow by a new class of zealots? Once censorship starts, where does it stop?

There is an attitude prevalent, among some of the most zealous that precludes them viewing anything through the “lens of history.” They refuse to acknowledge the valuable contributions of those who have gone before and insist on making groundless and foolish accusations. To make this point clear, I will draw on my many years of experience in the dog training business… keep in mind however, this example can be applied today to most of the current “social justice” causes.

As it pertains to dogs, some of the most experienced and highly respected trainers, in our midst today, learned and practised the techniques of Saunders, Persall, Koehler, Self, Godsell and many, many others and – here’s a news flash – THE DOGS GOT TRAINED. For a group of neophytes to sit around and say it doesn’t work: that it will cause aggression, that it will ruin your relationship with your dog, etc., etc., etc. is foolish. It’s foolish simply because it does not acknowledge that the methods have already been proven to work on tens of thousands of dogs. Some may even argue the dogs were better behaved and more reliable. As an aside, this would probably be the basis for a good study – if anyone were ambitious enough…. This is not to say that methods cannot be developed and improved upon – but any new thing should not be accepted simply on the basis of it being new. It must pass the test of careful scrutiny for it’s effectivness and reliablity.

Discussions such as these serve to highlight an even bigger problem we are faced with… the suppression of truly open discussions in which all viewpoints are welcomed. One competent and able trainer came forward and confirmed that she is one (and I suspect there are many) who feels they must be careful about expressing certain viewpoints. She felt she had to qualify everything she said and worried about the fallout and criticism that she would face if she were to, ‘tells it like it is.’ This dynamic (where people feel they must explain and qualify in order to avoid rejection by their peer group) represents a very important discussion that must take place. In my opinion this has to occur if we as a group, are to ever acknowledge and benefit from the experiences of others. However, to this point, the idea of having frank open discussions seems to be too threatening to some.

While reviewing that particular debate it occurred to me that this could go on for a very long time and possibly accomplish nothing. Perhaps we are not yet ready to really listen to each other. If so, maybe it’s time to become a bit more pragmatic and a little less consumed by ideology.

How we view our relationship with the animals in our care, and what we consider as our moral obligation to them, will be reflected in our beliefs about life in general. Whether or not one is a member of any particular group, it seems to me that central to ones philosophy on life is the question of whether or not one believes in an intelligent, creative power that is greater than themselves. If you believe all life is here because of some giant explosion followed by just the right combinations of random acts, you might have radically different views than if you believe there was intelligent design and a Creator.

In the first instance you might view all life as equal, all actions as motivated strictly by self-gain and the concept of “rights” as something to which all ‘combinations of DNA’ are equally entitled. Since that philosophy does not include God, or any power higher than oneself, it would state that there is no ultimate moral authority. Thus all moral considerations, like all other motivations, stem from the self. On the other hand, if all life flows from a higher power (God), if life is somehow connected with and subject to that creative force, then our rights and responsibilities – our understanding of right and wrong – flow from that same higher power. Just to be clear, my personal beliefs put me within this second camp.

If one’s view is that there is no ultimate moral authority (outside of themselves) than all their moral considerations like all other motivations are self-determined and come from within. Under such circumstances the very foundation of their worldview and their whole value system would be very unstable and vulnerable. It seems to me that such an individual’s ‘moral compass’ could quite easily fall under the influence and control of any group or individual that is able to manipulate their emotional state and/or apply meaningful social pressure. As such groups or persons become (in effect) the moral authority, they gain tremendous power and control over the individual.

Such dynamics work in a similar manner at the group level as well. In larger groups of people, not everyone needs to be convinced, simply get enough people onside with your aims and you have the means to impose the control on everyone else. The best defence against this process is to insist on a pursuit of the the truth and open honest discussion. Allowing all relevant facts and actual experiences (ie., the truth) to be discussed is threatening to those who desire to replace ‘freedom of choice’ with ‘freedom from choice.’

Believe it or not, this does have something to do with dog training! Dog training practices and discussions have been subjected to the same passionate focus as anything else having to do with the care and keeping of animals. This fact alone has made dog training vulnerable to the manipulations and subversive activities of various agendas and causes – not the least of which is the Animal Rights movement. If you think the Animal Rights agenda has confined itself to helping cute little fur seals on the ice flows off Newfoundland, you are mistaken.

The Animal Rights movement opposes all who value human life (above other forms of life) as well as anyone whose religious beliefs place man above the animals. Such individuals, groups and movements (in contrast to the Animal Rights movements that view humanity as a blight upon the planet) see mankind as having a rightful place on this earth. These groups are, in fact, seen as the greatest threat to the successful conclusion of the AR agenda. It is interesting to note that a great many of the world’s major religions hold both the concepts of ‘dominion over’ and ‘stewardship for’ all that was created. It is also worth noting that most folks within the Animal Rights movement reject the concept of “intelligent design” and opt for “random chance.” They add their voice to all who attempt to deny, discredit, denounce and abandon the concept of any higher power. Acceptance of such a higher creative power makes their objectives illegitimate for it removes from them the moral authority that they covet.

It is my belief that man was created as a free moral agent – free to choose and responsible for his choices. In a free society, government receives any authority it may have, from the citizens and that authority is restricted with very definite limits. Government has no authority to shift those limits and take on more power and control for itself. Our rights, our freedom does not come from the good graces of the government. Allowing government any more than a very limited role - with clearly defined areas of responsibility - in a free society, will almost certainly lead to a gradual but progressive loss of individual freedom. Allowing special interest groups and social causes to gain their objectives through government legislation can only lead (ultimately) to friction and strife. I don’t want governments making moral choices for me, and I certainly don’t want any Animal Rights group dictating laws and moral policy.

The Globalist Undermining of Western Civilization and Personal Freedoms

Having been born and raised in Canada, I understood several important things about the blessing that was mine. Growing up in a western democratic country, an oft repeated phrase… especially when differences were noted… was, “It’s a free country.” Indeed it was. I was aware that those precious freedoms came at a great price, and that they should never be taken for granted. It was also stressed that those freedoms must be protected, and would sometimes have to be defended, but in all cases we must, “Stand on guard for thee.”

Also, I was very aware that actions have consequences and further, we were not doing anyone any favours should we attempt to protect or shield individuals from those consequences. Mercy might however, sometimes mitigate the outcome. More on this as this essay unfolds.

Over the years, it has made me very sad to see the attacks against, and gradual demise of, those very things that made my country great. Slowly at first, and then with ever increasing speed the attacks have been relentless. Looking at our friends to the south… the USA is also undergoing those very same attacks and with some very similar results. There is also varying amounts of decay and decline as one looks towards other western countries. Some parts of Europe, in my opinion, are already largely a “basket case.” Is this all by accident or by design?

One of the strongest arguments for the promotion of western societal values has been the success of those nations that function as (truly) free and democratic societies. Our Judeo-Christian values, freedoms, AND civic responsibilities, coupled with strong national identities and interests has led to the successes enjoyed by such countries. Those, whose goal is to destroy and supplant successful western democratic nations, would first have to engineer their failure by destroying all that had made them successful and desirable. Succeed in doing that, and you just might then get enough support to implement a globalist agenda of some sort. Of course if such an agenda were going to succeed, it could not appear to be an attack… it would have to be made to appear as something desirable, humanitarian… progressive even. Sounds paranoid, you say? Well, let’s just stop and consider a few things.

Here in (no particular order) are just a few areas which have been under a sustained and growing attack:

1. Borders - Recent events all point at the push to eliminate sovereign borders. This would include the huge influx of illegal immigrants overrunning national boundaries, the rise in “sanctuary” cities, states or territories, and the active resistance (sponsored by the political left) toward border enforcement. This is most evident when we see a number of left-wing organizations funding, and actively subverting existing laws, while pushing toward so called, “open societies.” Sadly, while borders still can be found on maps, in a number of cases they have become incredibly weak.

2. National Identity – Along with attempts to eliminate national borders, there has also been a determined effort to deny, destroy or eradicate the history, cultural norms and symbols that are all part of a national and cultural identity. Indeed, the disastrous policies of official-multiculturalism have wreaked havoc on the cultural identities of a number of western countries. Such policy (always a darling of the “progressive” elites) is finally facing much deserved push-back and rejection… one can only hope the damage is not yet irreversible.

Indeed, following the 2015 election in Canada, Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be the world’s first “post-national country.” He then added, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” It seemed that the damaging Trudeau-regime ideals, begun by his father decades earlier, had finally been realized.

In an article titled, “For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada,” Ricardo Duchesne, Professor of Sociology, UNB and author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” writes (in part) the following:

“Today, the mainstream media and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity. Canadians then were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not racist, but merely ethnocentric, that is, a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies. As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another, inside Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”…

…How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is racist and xenophobic to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time, that every non-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada? How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s. The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.”

The article concludes with:

“The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage and refusing to join the multiculti choruses is despised as a xenophobic outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any particular European group, wishing to retain its identity. Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage. They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of non-European “diversity” and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West. Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto?

Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet.”

Quoting from a National Post article titled, “Trudeau's experiment with multiculturalism has been a failure” author George Jonas writes in part:

“In the 1960s, inspired by the spirit of the times, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his merry band of sorcerer’s apprentices, embarked on what seemed to them a jolly social experiment. It entailed altering this country’s ethno-cultural makeup, along with its institutions and ethos.”

“Canada’s brave new progressive-liberal-socialist mandarins devised on a three-step program to revamp the country culturally and demographically. It involved (a) reducing immigration from “traditional’ (read: West European) sources; (b) increasing it from non-traditional sources, and (c) dismantling Conservative Prime Minister (till 1963) John Diefenbaker’s ideal society of unhyphenated Canadians and replacing it with Trudeaucratic Liberalism’s ideal of a multicultural Canada.”

In the mean time, those wanting to hold to their traditions, national identity and culture, are being subjected to slander, ridicule and socialist style bullying tactics. Liberalized definitions of words like “racism” are being liberally used to taunt the more conservative amongst us. All the while, the left-wing generated hostility, against those of us they choose to label as xenophobic, continue to be encouraged.

3. History - “In war, truth is the first casualty.” ― Aeschylus

Whether or not you believe or like it, our society is embroiled in a culture war. The stakes are high. If you’ve read the article thus far, you are aware of what I’m referring to. Our past, the successes and struggles of our western societies are being targeted as a part of that war. To remove symbols of the past, to rewrite our history and to recast and demonize the accomplishments of those who have preceded us has been a consistent goal of the Liberal Progressives. They realise that if we can hold on to those successes and celebrate our past, their larger goal of undermining and supplanting our western democracies becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to achieve. If they can succeed in destroying our history – and with it, our roots and identity – they can perhaps move us toward their ultimate goal of a global socialist state.

4. Family – The basic building blocks of any society and indeed one of its greatest strengths is the strength and well-being of the individual family unit. A strong family unit that is teaching and passing on the history and values of society, contributes to the growth and health of that society. Destroy the family unit, and the society of which it is a part, begins to crumble. There is no question that in the west, the basic family unit has been under constant attack.

Divorce has been made far too easy to obtain. People are free to walk away from their “long-term” commitment for no other reason than they no longer wish to be married. This means there is far less motivation to do the hard work required to make marriage work. To this point, I am not questioning divorce for cause (such as abuse or adultery etc) but specifically the “no-fault,”divorce… just walk away from your spouse ‘cause you fell out of love… that has become so prevalent.

Subsequent to the significant weakening of the marriage contract, we’ve seen a sustained push for redefining marriage away from the traditional meaning that has served humanity for thousands of years. This, along with attacks on both masculine and feminine role models, plus attacks against human gender and what that means, has left many of the children of today with poor or missing role models, an unstable/uncertain home life, and great confusion about who and what they are. Taking on those missing parts and role models then becomes the perfectly created situation into which the state steps. Until recently, such roles and teachings would have been rightly fulfilled within a stable family unit. Just recently, the former Liberal government in Ontario happily declared their role within the school system as that of “co-parent.” And they have shown a readiness to take on that role aggressively as they undermine, and supplant the rightful role of parents.

5. Basic Freedoms - The rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so long are being whittled away at an increasing rate as they come under an almost daily attack. Special attention is paid to eliminating the individual right to express ourselves, our opinions and to speak freely. As well, our right to defend ourselves and our basic god-given rights to guard our person and property against all others (including our own government if necessary) is under constant threat and challenge by the political left.

6. Economy – Any country can be brought to the point of collapse if the economy can be made to fail. The chaos that results from a failing economy lends itself to the imposition of autocratic forceful control and the crackdown on individual freedom; all in the name of restoring order. Western economies have been placed under tremendous pressures; many of them self-imposed. We’ve seen decades of liberal policies building larger and larger debt loads, rising taxes, and failing promises. All this is done as a kind of left-wing ideal where the state ultimately is set to become the one who will take care of us all in a kind of cradle to grave utopia. This, of course, has led to social programs and entitlements that consume more and more of the country’s ability to pay. Add to this, the ever increasing mound of bureaucratic red-tape and government oversight; couple that with government literally giving away money it does not have and you have the basis of choking out any chance of recovery.

As if these pressures are not already enough to destabilize any economy, add to this attack on the economy, the already mentioned open borders and the accompanying mass of illegal immigration. When you do, couple all that with a motivated and financed effort to overwhelm the country’s social and legal systems (all financed by left-wing special-interest groups) and the destruction is near complete. Now to complete the destruction, throw in an unproven unscientific carbon reduction protocol, couple it with a global wealth redistribution plan, and the failure seems guaranteed.

7. Churches – Many of the principles contributing to the successes of western democracies have their roots in their Judaeo-Christian foundation. Much of what has made these cultures desirable and attractive also have the same Judaeo-Christian beginnings. The peaceful coexistence of church and state has seen nations free and prosperous. Today, those same Judaeo-Christian principles and ideals, once seen as a part of the churches role, are being attacked and restricted as the state seeks first to regulate and then to assume control.

8. Schools – I’ve already mentioned schools, as the education system seeks to take on a co-parenting role in the raising of our children. I think it needs to be stressed that academics, which was once upon a time determined by social contract and understanding, was the schools primary role. It seems this is no longer the case. Schools were known as the places where children went to learn the so-called “3 R’s” and they were never intended to parent children. Learning right from wrong, ethics and morality, how to become a responsible person and a good citizen, cultural celebrations and norms… were among all the issues that were the responsibility of parents in a stable and loving family.

Of course now schools, at the granting of the progressive state, have taken over many of those roles. Parents often have no idea what their children are being taught. Sadly, little of it seems to be of an academic value (as witnessed by abysmal math, reading and writing skills). In some cases the parents are being told they do not even have the right to know exactly what their child is being taught…particularly when it comes to state-decided morality issues. With early and long-term indoctrination, the state has the ability to train up a generation of people who will carry forth the global-socialist ideals that the left seems so determined to realize.

I’ve presented just eight short examples of why I think there is a larger agenda driving the chaos and discord we see in our society today. I recognize that each could be debated at a much greater length and what I presented is just the barest of summaries for each point. It is my desire that in presenting these points of view, thought and possibly further discussion will be stimulated. As they used to say on a very popular television show, “The truth is out there.”

Is The Media The Enemy?

The topic I wish to comment on today has been brewing in my mind for quite some time. Like many people I know, I also have become more and more concerned with the degree of anger, strife and division to be found in both Canada and the USA. If one is paying attention to the rapid evolution of conflict within our society, where we are headed becomes an obvious concern. It was following a recent comment by President Trump, that I felt compelled to finally put my musings to paper.

On February 17/17, Trump made the comment that the media is not his enemy so much as it is an enemy of the American people. Of course this stirred up much discussion and concern as to the veracity of the statement and the important role the press/media play in our society. Indeed, one of the most important rights and freedoms we enjoy is the so called, “freedom of the press” – this coupled with our freedom of speech and expression exists at the very foundation of a free society.

So then, what of Trump’s comment? Is it a baseless accusation or is there any truth to it? In order to answer these questions, I’d first like to look a little deeper into the issues and context that surround such comments. Also, though I referenced Trumps comments, this writing is not meant as a defense or condemnation of Trump and/or his policies.

In both Canada and the USA, the press enjoys a unique and protected position that has been specifically written into each country’s constitution. In return for this very special (protected) status, there are certain responsibilities a free press has:

1. to truthfully report the news “fully, accurately and fairly”

2. hold government leaders accountable to the people

3. educate citizens to all the facts so they can make informed decisions, and

4. connect people with each other in civil society.

Given the special and unique relationship a free press has within a free and democratic society, the question becomes: “Is our mass media, the so-called ‘mainstream media,’ fully living up to those responsibilities?” If they are, they are unquestionably not only an asset to our society but an indispensable necessity. If they are failing to live up to all responsibilities, they then become a dysfunctional liability. If they purposely abandon their responsibilities, they can become downright destructive and subversive.

The real question then is; to what extent is the media living up to their responsibilities? Are there areas where they are failing and the dysfunction is significant enough that it is of real concern?

Aside from the anti-Trump screed included within his opinion piece, Neil Macdonald makes some very valid points. His whole article, “Trust in the media is sinking and it's time to act: Neil Macdonald” can be found at http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/news-journalism-standards-regulation-neil-macdonald-1.3991443?cmp=rss.

The following quotes are taken from his article:

“…Like a stupid cop or a nasty bureaucrat, or, worse, a maliciously dull-witted doctor or lawyer or stockbroker, a bad reporter can ruin a person's life, or at least a person's career.

But there's a difference: all of the other occupations I just mentioned are legally leashed and held accountable, to one extent or another. People in those jobs must qualify for them, and submit to strict professional standards…

…There is no uniform qualification for a reporter, no uniform code of behaviour. Journalism has vigorously resisted any efforts to legally define journalism, or any sort of peer review…

…A huge swath of journalism doesn't even bother pretending self-regulation…

…Gallup's most recent testing of public opinion suggested that trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" is at its lowest level in polling history.

Only 32 per cent of respondents said they trusted the mainstream media…

… This is not a new phenomenon, either. Gallup has traced a steady decline in trust for two decades.”

I believe the two decade decline, which Macdonald has identified, is significant and has its’ roots in the social engineering push of the progressive movement. When I speak of social engineering, I am referring specifically to efforts meant to influence and/or change particular attitudes and social behaviours on a large scale. Whether by governments, media or private groups, the goal of social engineering remains that of attempting to produce desired changes in a target population. Mass media could conceivably be used as a tool for large scale societal change if any political movement were to successfully introduce their particular ideology into journalistic schools. Once introduced and implemented as teaching ideals to emerging journalists, the press would eventually begin to reflect those ideologies – and this is what I believe has happened.

With the above in mind; to one degree or another, the media has often become the legs carrying the message of the progressive left in their quest to engineer society into their view of a liberal paradise. Often disguised under lofty, idealistic labels (containing terms to suggest social justice or fairness and freedom) the progressive agenda gets moved forward by a media that is more than willing to tirelessly promote the issue du jour until it is accepted. Whether the issue is open borders, immigration policy, homosexual policy, sexual/gender identity, school curriculum, political correctness or fiscal policy, the mainstream media most-often abandons a neutral, fact-based position in favour of a pro-liberal stance. Let me hasten to add, while smearing and denigrating the conservative position. The political struggles between the left and the right are kept alive by a media driving the wedge ever deeper into the fabric of our culture.

This media bias can be seen in a great many of our recent elections. Conservative leaders are almost uniformly misrepresented and presented in the least desirable light possible whilst liberal leaders receive much more favourable treatment. This has been true for every conservative leader I can think of during the past 50 years. While the argument usually presented, is that the comments and criticisms are specific to a particular conservative leader. The fact is however, that the same pejorative terms are often dragged out and used in smear campaigns against all conservative leaders. Traditionally, the media (being the sacred cow that it is) is largely left alone and unchallenged. In recent years however, there has begun to be some long overdue push-back and more attempts to hold the media to account.

Now things really start to get interesting - enter Donald Trump and the USA presidential election of 2016. When Trump entered the presidential race, he was treated as a curiosity, a joke and a headline grabber. He was scoffed at and not taken seriously by the media. Yet in a field of 17 candidates, Trump eventually won the Republican nomination. In the run to the White House against the Democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton) Trump was the media underdog and not expected to win. Against the odds, Trump took on the Democratic machine, hundreds of millions of dollars spent in damning and negative ads, a very negative and at times hostile mainstream media and yet won a stunning victory.

As has often been the case, many in the media seemed to feel they can constantly attack, but be immune to counterattack. If and when someone does attempt to counterattack, the media often respond with a kind of self-righteous indignation. In my opinion Trump was able to overcome much of the negative press because he confronted them quickly and directly. Whereas in the past, many leaders of conservative parties would have attempted to deal with the negative commentary by becoming defensive or by attempting to rise above the fray… ignoring the negative noise while trying to get their message out, Trump counter-punched. He hit back and he hit hard which often found the media in the unfamiliar position of defensiveness. He called them on their bias, he called them on their sloppiness and bad journalism and he called them on their attempts to deceive. This, I believe, worked because this is what the public wanted and were waiting for. If, however, the media had not already lost their believability and respect, the people would have believed them and not voted for Trump.

Many within the mainstream media, much like a spoiled child needing a good spanking, wailed long and loud after finally receiving their comeuppance. Now, after the election is over, too many in the media still seem not to have learned. Instead of acting adult, gathering the facts and reporting the news, they persist in a sort of angry rage to try to take down the one who dared expose them and the (no longer hallowed) halls of ‘acamedia.’ (Academia X Mass Media). In the process, they continue to drive a wedge into those things about which there is already some division… and they cause the rift to widen even more. Maybe it’s time the media grew-up and began to hold themselves and each other accountable… maybe there needs to be some sort of standards and oversight of the media’s actions.

In closing, listen to the words of Neil Macdonald as it pertains to holding the media accountable and responsible:

“But the wider distrust expressed in polls is something else. Journalism is losing the support of rational, intelligent, thoughtful consumers, and that is a serious threat.

Recapturing it probably means a little less snark (millennials, especially, seem to loathe snark and smug, of which I am a foremost practitioner), less blatant clickbait (in some ways, news websites are becoming a collection of bad listicles), more policy and less politics, and less pusillanimous surrender to ratings, something that helped create Trump.

But nothing would go further in recapturing public trust than becoming a true profession, with standards, qualifications, accountability and enforceable rules. As much as I shudder at being judged by other journalists, there is no longer any other way.”

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.