I am just finishing up a whirlwind 36 hours in Ottawa which included several work-related meetings and as usual in this town, some catchup with various friends and acquaintances who make this town at least their part-time home due to their involvement in things political. Not that I was wavering but I leave here more convinced that a Canadian federal election is not on the immediate horizon. So, with that knowledge and the the news out from the latest CROP poll, it is time to update the election prognosticator, just in case anybody cares.
It is crucial to remember in trying to predict the timing of the next election that it takes all three opposition parties to defeat the Conservatives. Usually when it is ideal for one of them, the gains that will be made will at least come at the expense of the others. Furthermore, despite the high-minded rhetoric about principles in politics, elections also involved persons. For MPs to vote for an election means to put their job on the line, with the full knowledge that strange things beyond one's control can happen in a campaign. MPs, no more than anyone else, wants to give up a secure paycheque and all that comes with the job, for the job market in this economy. And that holds true on all sides of the house.
I notice that Andrew Steel is writing about a Conservative-Separatist-Socialist coalition. My guess is that the politics on all sides of this equation will mean that there will be no formal deals, signing ceremonies, or even informal deals. Everyone needs to be able to plausibly deny that are arrangements between them. None of these parties, given what they have said to their grassroots about the others, can afford to be perceived as supporting each other. Still, with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge and "one-off" support for pieces of legislation from the NDP and Bloc (and keep in mind, the Liberals do vote with the government about 85% of the time), there is a way for the government to maneuver its way into 2010.
So no grand announcements or events that will secure the government into the future. In fact, all parties may play some games of political chicken with each other, running attack ads, and testing each other (and especially Mr. Ignatieff) to see what they are made off. However, when push comes to shove, it is most likely that one or the other will back off. In fact, polls like the one just released lessen, not increase, the likelihood of an election in the near future.
Thursday, 30 April, 2009
Tuesday, 28 April, 2009
The Special Place of Newspapers
Jonathan Kay's Post column this morning waxes eloquent on his love for newspapers. His line "When you hear that paper log hit your porch in the morning, that is the sound of the world sending you homework." provides a different perspective, but not that different of a sentiment than a line I am fond of using, "I read the newspaper each morning to see what God is doing in the world today." A robust and biblical theology of providence makes it difficult for me to comprehend how someone who takes the Scripture seriously can be uninterested in current affairs, although alas, that seems to be the case with many.
Reading this column brought to mind the first column I wrote as a member of the Hamilton Spectator community board almost a decade ago (my file saved date on the computer is Feb 10,2000 but it probably ran in the paper a week or so later - the benefits of being a digital pack rat.) I re-read it this morning and thought I would share it again via this page.
Reading this column brought to mind the first column I wrote as a member of the Hamilton Spectator community board almost a decade ago (my file saved date on the computer is Feb 10,2000 but it probably ran in the paper a week or so later - the benefits of being a digital pack rat.) I re-read it this morning and thought I would share it again via this page.
Newspapers a Place for Community to Discuss Basic Values
Ray Pennings
I’ve always enjoyed newspapers.
As a fourth grader, I remember getting off the bus and picking up the blue-bagged newspaper lying at the end of our rural driveway. As I trudged home, school bag slung over one shoulder, I kept my back to the wind in order to protect the sixteen pages of The St. Thomas Times Journal from blowing away as I read them. By the time I dawdled to the house, the front page had been digested for current events class. Over a snack, I’d make a priority of the sports and comics, but before I was done I’d glanced at every page.
My early love affair with newspapers probably wasn’t typical, but then again, typical teens are wiser than to join a political party at age 14. From the insides of a campaign office, I watched keenly to see if the attempts to manipulate the media into favourable coverage would work. I became frustrated when, knocking on doors, I found people believing the headlines I had seen cleverly plotted. I soon began reading more than one paper, and found out that different media fell victim to different biases.
From my own home, I realized that different people respond differently to newspapers. My mom was a part-time nurse, and the obituary page told her whether some of her patients would be there to await another night’s care. And then there was the seventy-something retired school teacher who lived a few miles down the road. I’ve never met him, but felt like I knew him well since his name was painted on his barn with big letters and his opinions on every controversial topic was shared through his letters-to-the-editor.
Times have changed. My fourth grade son can read the on-line version of the European and west coast papers before he goes to school. (He doesn’t.) The six-section, sixty page Spectator is in our driveway by five a.m.. The news I read on my way home from school was usually at least twenty-four hours old; today, the morning papers contain advance summaries of announcements that will be made later in the day. Based on the assumption that most readers will be already familiar with the headlines from radio, television, or electronic sources, today’s newspapers concentrate on providing depth and perspective to the issues of the day.
The task of the Spectator community editorial board is, to quote the editor, to provide “expert, alternative, and passionate perspective on our communities.” The dictionary notes that “community” refers to things shared or held in common. The news pages contains literally thousands of pieces of data that occur in the world. Opinion pieces help place this clutter in some sort of framework so readers can make sense of it.
A healthy community debate requires spirited contributions from both individuals and institutions.
Like all people, my perspective is coloured by my experiences. I’m a citizen, father, husband, union leader, church member, community activist, taxpayer, writer, neighbour – the list goes on. Each one of life’s roles casts different light on issues. The informed opinion is one that can find some clarity from amidst the shadows.
Public debate involves listening not only to individuals within groups, but also to the groups as a collective. It’s my impression, however, that today many advocates for business, education, medical, labour, religious, or family interests often present solutions as if their institution holds the secret cure to all society’s ills.
Experiences may provide interesting stories, but worthwhile opinion requires more. It explores what events tell us about our core assumptions about life. A healthy community does not depend on whether we spend X or Y dollars on the controversial proposal of the day. A healthy community reflects shared commitments about such concepts as responsibility and rights, justice and forgiveness, virtue and evil, tradition and future. Dig beneath most controversies and you can find deeply-rooted differences.
A healthy society requires a forum where these differences can be voiced. History reminds us that basic ideas must by freely debated and tested if we are to live and grow together. I look forward to use my experiences and involvement in various organizations to contribute to that debate.
Monday, 27 April, 2009
Conviction with Grace
Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon was scheduled to speak at the Notre Dame commencement. A few weeks ago, Notre Dame announced that President Obama was going to speak, and asked Prof. Glendon to still speak, but obviously in a secondary role. Prof. Glendon is a devout Catholic and Notre Dame is a Catholic institution, but President Obama's policies on life issues are hardly compatible with Catholic theology.
Yesterday Prof. Glendon sent a letter to Notre Dame withdrawing her willingness to serve in this capacity. Not only is the substance and courage of the letter commendable, but I was very impressed with the very clear, firm yet winsome tone in which she makes her points. Would that more of us could learn to disagree with others in a way that similarly combines graciousness with clarity!
(h/t Justin Taylor)
Yesterday Prof. Glendon sent a letter to Notre Dame withdrawing her willingness to serve in this capacity. Not only is the substance and courage of the letter commendable, but I was very impressed with the very clear, firm yet winsome tone in which she makes her points. Would that more of us could learn to disagree with others in a way that similarly combines graciousness with clarity!
(h/t Justin Taylor)
Calgary FRC receives her first Pastor
I have previously blogged about the church plant that our family has been involved with over the past several years. Yesterday was a significant milestone in the life of our congregation as we received word that Pastor Hans Overduin, presently the pastor of the Chilliwack BC Free Reformed Church, had accepted our call to be our pastor.
Reformed ecclesiology holds that Christ rules His church through the special offices - the pastor fulfilling the office of prophet; the deacon of priest, and the elder as king. Being a pastor of a congregation is not a "job" one applies for but is a calling. While the human elements in this process cannot be discounted, we believe that when a church and pastor faithfully and prayerfully follow through the various processes that are in place to select a man for a congregation, that God will make His way clear. Calling always has two parts -- the congregation formally extends a call to a man (there is no application process) they believe has the gifts to serve their needs and then that man feeling led by God to accept that call (or not if He does not have a clear sense of the Lord's leading). Once the call is accepted and a man is ordained in a congregation, he cannot be removed without the consent of a broader ecclesiastical assembly. He is there being sent by God and is called to bring God's word faithfully, even if that should prove to be unpopular.
Since our institution in Calgary in September 2007, we have been actively pursuing the calling of a pastor. The consistory originally presented the names of three men to the congregation in the spring of 2007 with a view to calling one of them immediately after our institution. During the intervening six months, two of the three men accepted calls to other congregations making them ineligible and our congregation extended a call to the remaining candidate but he declined. As a congregation, we again went through the process, identifying the gifts we felt were particularly needed in the ministry context of our congregation and again this fall identified three men who we felt had some of those gifts. We invited each to preach for us so that our congregation could become more familiar with these men and three weeks ago, the congregation voted to extend the call to Pastor Overduin. Yesterday a letter of acceptance was read in our morning worship service.
I know this blog is read regularly by many who are people of faith (although from various denominations, some of whom employ quite different processes) and also by some who do not profess Christian faith. To those outside of the church, internal church processes are sometimes viewed cynically. More than once I have heard these processes dismissed as religious politics dressed up in pious process and language but amounting to not much more than a power game playing with the spiritual emotions of vulnerable people. Arguments and explanations of the process are unlikely to convince those whose worldview does not include believing in God and His power. Honesty also forces us to acknowledge that these processes are not always carried through with the trust and prayerful dependence on God's leading that is required.
Still, yesterday morning I sat in the sanctuary with the other 50 or so worshippers, half of whom had not been born into homes where faith and regular church-going was part of their lives, awaiting word whether or not Pastor Overduin would accept the call. We heard the news together, and a special bond of communion with God and each other swept over us. A spontaneous "Hallelujah" (unusual in our services as Reformed folk are typically quite reserved in worship), tears, and the sense of God's care and provision for us, a seemingly insignificant group that in human terms do not really amount to that much, swept over the sanctuary. The service continued and in our liturgy, there is no space for "sharing time" at moments like this. Still, as we sang together and as our visiting preacher Dr. Murray led us in congregational prayer, there was an fervancy that was present throughout. After the service over coffee and in our bible classes (where there is opportunity for sharing) voices of amazement and gratitude were heard.
As Calvinists, we have a strong theology of the sovereignty of God which often causes us to admire His attributes from a distance, and realize our own finitude and smallness in contrast to His glory and grandeur. But we also confess that God is a person, who is loving and caring and takes interest in even the weakest of His lambs. In sending Pastor Overduin as an under-shepherd to minister among us, in circumstances that humanly speaking seemed improbable, is a reminder of God's goodness, grace, and concern for His people.
We praise God for His goodness shown to us, in the truth of His word, but also in the grace in our lives.
Reformed ecclesiology holds that Christ rules His church through the special offices - the pastor fulfilling the office of prophet; the deacon of priest, and the elder as king. Being a pastor of a congregation is not a "job" one applies for but is a calling. While the human elements in this process cannot be discounted, we believe that when a church and pastor faithfully and prayerfully follow through the various processes that are in place to select a man for a congregation, that God will make His way clear. Calling always has two parts -- the congregation formally extends a call to a man (there is no application process) they believe has the gifts to serve their needs and then that man feeling led by God to accept that call (or not if He does not have a clear sense of the Lord's leading). Once the call is accepted and a man is ordained in a congregation, he cannot be removed without the consent of a broader ecclesiastical assembly. He is there being sent by God and is called to bring God's word faithfully, even if that should prove to be unpopular.
Since our institution in Calgary in September 2007, we have been actively pursuing the calling of a pastor. The consistory originally presented the names of three men to the congregation in the spring of 2007 with a view to calling one of them immediately after our institution. During the intervening six months, two of the three men accepted calls to other congregations making them ineligible and our congregation extended a call to the remaining candidate but he declined. As a congregation, we again went through the process, identifying the gifts we felt were particularly needed in the ministry context of our congregation and again this fall identified three men who we felt had some of those gifts. We invited each to preach for us so that our congregation could become more familiar with these men and three weeks ago, the congregation voted to extend the call to Pastor Overduin. Yesterday a letter of acceptance was read in our morning worship service.
I know this blog is read regularly by many who are people of faith (although from various denominations, some of whom employ quite different processes) and also by some who do not profess Christian faith. To those outside of the church, internal church processes are sometimes viewed cynically. More than once I have heard these processes dismissed as religious politics dressed up in pious process and language but amounting to not much more than a power game playing with the spiritual emotions of vulnerable people. Arguments and explanations of the process are unlikely to convince those whose worldview does not include believing in God and His power. Honesty also forces us to acknowledge that these processes are not always carried through with the trust and prayerful dependence on God's leading that is required.
Still, yesterday morning I sat in the sanctuary with the other 50 or so worshippers, half of whom had not been born into homes where faith and regular church-going was part of their lives, awaiting word whether or not Pastor Overduin would accept the call. We heard the news together, and a special bond of communion with God and each other swept over us. A spontaneous "Hallelujah" (unusual in our services as Reformed folk are typically quite reserved in worship), tears, and the sense of God's care and provision for us, a seemingly insignificant group that in human terms do not really amount to that much, swept over the sanctuary. The service continued and in our liturgy, there is no space for "sharing time" at moments like this. Still, as we sang together and as our visiting preacher Dr. Murray led us in congregational prayer, there was an fervancy that was present throughout. After the service over coffee and in our bible classes (where there is opportunity for sharing) voices of amazement and gratitude were heard.
As Calvinists, we have a strong theology of the sovereignty of God which often causes us to admire His attributes from a distance, and realize our own finitude and smallness in contrast to His glory and grandeur. But we also confess that God is a person, who is loving and caring and takes interest in even the weakest of His lambs. In sending Pastor Overduin as an under-shepherd to minister among us, in circumstances that humanly speaking seemed improbable, is a reminder of God's goodness, grace, and concern for His people.
We praise God for His goodness shown to us, in the truth of His word, but also in the grace in our lives.
Saturday, 25 April, 2009
The Purpose of Marriage - Puritan Perspective
Today's Christian History Connection Newsletter contains an interesting "Did You Know?"
Anglican treatises on marriage listed procreation as the primary purpose of marriage, followed by restraint and remedy of sin, and finally companionship. The Puritans reversed the order, putting mutual society, help, and comfort in first place. Daniel Rogers wrote, "Husbands and wives should be as two sweet friends, bred under one constellation, tempered by an influence from heaven whereof neither can give any reason, save mercy and providence first made them so, and then made their match; saying, see, God hath determined us out of this vast world for each other." In direct contrast to the medieval Catholic glorification of celibacy, the Puritans placed a very high value on marriage, sex, and family—as long as they occurred in that order!
You can learn more about the English Puritans in our archives.
Thursday, 23 April, 2009
Law and Justice
Earlier this week, Cardus released the next issue of our policy journal Cardus Policy in Public.
This issue focuses on crime and punishment. Cardus Senior Fellow Eleanor Clitheroe suggests our criminal system isn't working, and argues for incorporating restorative justice principles. Timothy Egan, President of High Park Advocacy Association and a lawyer in Toronto, disagrees with Eleanor, suggesting courts should focus on objective justice, leaving the task of mercy to better-suited institutions.
This issue also includes: a review of Thomas Farr's World of Faith and Freedom; reader response to our previous CPIP on construction costs; and our signature feature, a survey of what Canadian think tanks across the spectrum are doing.
This issue focuses on crime and punishment. Cardus Senior Fellow Eleanor Clitheroe suggests our criminal system isn't working, and argues for incorporating restorative justice principles. Timothy Egan, President of High Park Advocacy Association and a lawyer in Toronto, disagrees with Eleanor, suggesting courts should focus on objective justice, leaving the task of mercy to better-suited institutions.
This issue also includes: a review of Thomas Farr's World of Faith and Freedom; reader response to our previous CPIP on construction costs; and our signature feature, a survey of what Canadian think tanks across the spectrum are doing.
Wednesday, 22 April, 2009
Seguing the Harper - Mulroney Feud to General Life Priniciples
Paul Wells has posted a fascinating blow-by-blow account of the past few months of feuding between PM Harper and former PM Mulroney. I recognize that articles of this sort of probably of much more interest to political junkies who keep up with the "insider baseball" than to the general population who only become more cynical after reading pieces like this, but as I skimmed it this morning a few larger truths / principles about politics were reinforced in my mind....
- The petty and personal have a way of clouding our judgments. I have seen it in politics, business, and church life -- someone develops a strong opinion about another person and quickly everything that person does is bad. "If they are for it, I am against it." It speaks to the importance of having diverse teams who have differing personal networks of relationships who are able to point out when decisions are being made based on personality rather than sound argument. I have no idea as to the extent to which this is a factor in the PM dispute Wells details, but it is frequently a factor.
- A liberal orientation / mindset can prompt people who agree on 10% and disagree on 90% to look for ways to work together on that which they agree. A conservative orientation can prompt people who agree on 90% and disagree on 10% to focus on their disagreement. It is a reality of life and manifests itself so often and in so many ways.
- When process or position become more significant than outcome or mission, life gets messy pretty quickly.
Basic truths about human beings living together that seem to be manifesting themselves in politics as they do in so many other areas of life.
- The petty and personal have a way of clouding our judgments. I have seen it in politics, business, and church life -- someone develops a strong opinion about another person and quickly everything that person does is bad. "If they are for it, I am against it." It speaks to the importance of having diverse teams who have differing personal networks of relationships who are able to point out when decisions are being made based on personality rather than sound argument. I have no idea as to the extent to which this is a factor in the PM dispute Wells details, but it is frequently a factor.
- A liberal orientation / mindset can prompt people who agree on 10% and disagree on 90% to look for ways to work together on that which they agree. A conservative orientation can prompt people who agree on 90% and disagree on 10% to focus on their disagreement. It is a reality of life and manifests itself so often and in so many ways.
- When process or position become more significant than outcome or mission, life gets messy pretty quickly.
Basic truths about human beings living together that seem to be manifesting themselves in politics as they do in so many other areas of life.
Monday, 20 April, 2009
UN Moves Compromise Free Press
Paul Marshall from the Hudson Institute has an insightful piece (h/t to my facebook friend Bill DeJong for linking this) which highlights how Turkey achieved concessions in exchange for their support of the new head of NATO. They opposed the appointment of Mr. Rasmussen due to the Danish government's publication of the cartoons, but were appeased by the appointment of various Turkish officials to key positions. Marshall rightfully warns:
By demanding concessions from Western governments for what Western newspapers publish, and by actually receiving political recompense from those same governments, Turkey has made major steps in requiring Western governments to be held accountable for what their newspapers publish. From there, it is a short step to the need to control what those newspapers publish.
Friday, 17 April, 2009
Truth is the first casualty....
A few quick hits from various news items putting some perspective on truth-telling in public life....
- From the Oliphant Comission which, I think most reasonable people agree, has been set up to sort out where the truth lies between the conflicting claims of Karlheinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (in other words, neither of their stories to date are entirely believable), comes a few gems.
Regarding what signatures mean....
Regarding notes in his hand appearing on a document he claims not to have written on....
Regarding raising taxes in the future....
And on cutting taxes in the past....
And so it goes, on and on. It is a given to expect "spin" from our leaders, just as I expect my son when giving me an explanation of a difficulty to give me his side of a story, a salesman to point out the virtues of the product she is trying to get me to buy, or an author to point out data that supports his argument. But there is a difference between "spin" - putting the best face on a story -- and deceit.
It is a sad commentary that truthtelling in our public and legal systems has been debased to the extent it does, with the result that everyone becomes totally cynical and facts don't matter. In the legal proceedings, Schreiber's line seems to be "everyone says whatever needs to be said, whether true or not, to get what they want. Why are you picking on me?" (Apart from the "miracle" line, which I suspect was intended as code for "I believe these documents were tampered with but I don't have the proof" so I'm counting on all the other evidence to help me out here and will take a pass on my credibility here." I am curious what Judge Oliphant will do with this.)
Both Ignatieff and Brodie are paying a political price (directly in Ignatieff's case; indirectly via the Conservatives in Brodie) for speaking what most people would understand to be the truth. When deficits go up, taxes eventually will have to pay for them (with interest no less.) The interesting point is not what is being said, but the political price that comes for simply speaking the truth.
Politics today is about brand, marketing and positioning in order to obtain power. It is less and less about ideas and what to do with power. The sad result is not only that the process is becoming more and more distasteful; it is also that once you obtain power under these conditions, there is relatively little you can do with it. Hence we have the sort of drift and disillusionment that many are feeling with the Conservatives now.
While we still have truth telling acknowledged as a virtue (no one runs on "I am a better liar than my opponent"), in practice we don't have a culture of truth in politics. The fact is that voters don't punish politicians for telling lies and in fact, are more likely to punish those who tell the truth. Sadly, we reap what we sow. Hence, candid admissions by political leaders and aides end up being replaced by false avidaivaits and brown envelopes containing cash. Thankfully, we still have a loose sense that there is a line being crossed, -- loose enough to hold an inquiry into this, although one fears the reason for the inquiry has more to do with partisanship and bungling in previous investigations than a genuine concern for the transparency and integrity of our process -- but it will take a cultural change, not a commission report in order to get at the root of this problem.
- From the Oliphant Comission which, I think most reasonable people agree, has been set up to sort out where the truth lies between the conflicting claims of Karlheinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (in other words, neither of their stories to date are entirely believable), comes a few gems.
Regarding what signatures mean....
"When we sign a letter, we sign a letter with our signature indicating that youre telling the truth. Thats why you sign a letter, isnt it?" lead commission counsel Richard Wolson asked Schreiber on his third day of questioning.
"No," Schreiber replied. "If every letter you sent out and you exchange with politicians would be true, we would have a different world and dont tell me you dont know that."
Regarding notes in his hand appearing on a document he claims not to have written on....
The document outlined a “mandate” for Mulroney for 1993-96, saying he would maintain an international “watching brief” for business opportunities for Schreiber’s companies. Schreiber said he never gave Mulroney such a mandate.
However, he couldn’t explain how notes in his hand appeared on the document.
“I have no idea,” he said.
Manitoba Justice Jeffrey Oliphant, the inquiry chairman, reacted with surprise:
“I’ve heard of disappearing ink, but this is the opposite.”
Regarding raising taxes in the future....
Michael Ignatieff on Tuesday indicated that raising taxes would be necessary to deal with the deficit. By Thursday, he was backtracking. In the meantime, the Conservatives jumped on the comment in an attempt to brand Ignatieff a tax and spend LIberal.
And on cutting taxes in the past....
Ian Brodie, former Chief of Staff to PM Harper, noted in a conference at McGill that the GST cut may not have been the best economic policy but "worked" because there was a positive payoff. This is not the line the conservatives have been using to defend those cuts to date.
And so it goes, on and on. It is a given to expect "spin" from our leaders, just as I expect my son when giving me an explanation of a difficulty to give me his side of a story, a salesman to point out the virtues of the product she is trying to get me to buy, or an author to point out data that supports his argument. But there is a difference between "spin" - putting the best face on a story -- and deceit.
It is a sad commentary that truthtelling in our public and legal systems has been debased to the extent it does, with the result that everyone becomes totally cynical and facts don't matter. In the legal proceedings, Schreiber's line seems to be "everyone says whatever needs to be said, whether true or not, to get what they want. Why are you picking on me?" (Apart from the "miracle" line, which I suspect was intended as code for "I believe these documents were tampered with but I don't have the proof" so I'm counting on all the other evidence to help me out here and will take a pass on my credibility here." I am curious what Judge Oliphant will do with this.)
Both Ignatieff and Brodie are paying a political price (directly in Ignatieff's case; indirectly via the Conservatives in Brodie) for speaking what most people would understand to be the truth. When deficits go up, taxes eventually will have to pay for them (with interest no less.) The interesting point is not what is being said, but the political price that comes for simply speaking the truth.
Politics today is about brand, marketing and positioning in order to obtain power. It is less and less about ideas and what to do with power. The sad result is not only that the process is becoming more and more distasteful; it is also that once you obtain power under these conditions, there is relatively little you can do with it. Hence we have the sort of drift and disillusionment that many are feeling with the Conservatives now.
While we still have truth telling acknowledged as a virtue (no one runs on "I am a better liar than my opponent"), in practice we don't have a culture of truth in politics. The fact is that voters don't punish politicians for telling lies and in fact, are more likely to punish those who tell the truth. Sadly, we reap what we sow. Hence, candid admissions by political leaders and aides end up being replaced by false avidaivaits and brown envelopes containing cash. Thankfully, we still have a loose sense that there is a line being crossed, -- loose enough to hold an inquiry into this, although one fears the reason for the inquiry has more to do with partisanship and bungling in previous investigations than a genuine concern for the transparency and integrity of our process -- but it will take a cultural change, not a commission report in order to get at the root of this problem.
Thursday, 16 April, 2009
NeoCalvinism - NeoPuritan Reverbs....
Bob Robinson on his Vanguard Church blog, is doing a few entries prompted by, among other things, Time's inclusion of New Calvinism an idea currently changing the world (which I commented on extensively during March 16-20 on this blog.)
In his piece he references my Comment article "Can we hope for a neocalvinsit - neopuritan dialogue?" Bob uses the article to make helpful distinctions, ending with an enthusiastic plug for neocalvinism as the kind of idea that can change the world right now.
The point I wanted to make in my Comment piece is that although there are clear emphasis in these two camps which prompt necessary distinctions, there is reason for each camp to learn from each other. Most neocalvinists I know are not piety or church averse, just as most neopuritans do recognize that there is a comprehensiveness to the work of God that extends beyond the salvation of individuals. So we are talking about degrees and nuance here, but that does not mean there are not aspects of each of these frameworks which tend to reinforce certain patterns which require rethinking. Hence, my argument for a dialogue as being useful for both sides.
What would such a discussion end up focusing on? A few quick thoughts....
1. The role of the institutional church, in particular as it relates to her special offices. Sometimes the neocalvinist emphasis on vocation, the priesthood of all believers, and a resistance to dualism can result in a de-emphasis on the way that Christ as prophet, priest, and king through the special offices in the church, ministers to his people.
2. The place of theology as "the queen of the sciences" and how it relates to other disciplines.
3. The connection between common grace and special grace. Some of the discussions here will bring us into how we understand social change rather than theology proper and it is especially here, with the emphasis on social institutions, that the neocalvinists have some insights which will benefit the neopuritans. The idea that all we have to do is change hearts, and social change sort of naturally will proceed after the majority of people believe, has been well proven by history to be a flawed theory. Changed societies require more than changed hearts, and changed societies do matter to God. The "one thing needful" is hardly the only thing needful.
There is much more to be said, and quick blog postings are hardly the appropriate forum in which this debate with all of its nuance can be properly had. Still, I thank Mr. Robinson for highlighting the issue and look forward to the opportunity when we may have the opportunity to discuss these matters further in person I hope.
In his piece he references my Comment article "Can we hope for a neocalvinsit - neopuritan dialogue?" Bob uses the article to make helpful distinctions, ending with an enthusiastic plug for neocalvinism as the kind of idea that can change the world right now.
The point I wanted to make in my Comment piece is that although there are clear emphasis in these two camps which prompt necessary distinctions, there is reason for each camp to learn from each other. Most neocalvinists I know are not piety or church averse, just as most neopuritans do recognize that there is a comprehensiveness to the work of God that extends beyond the salvation of individuals. So we are talking about degrees and nuance here, but that does not mean there are not aspects of each of these frameworks which tend to reinforce certain patterns which require rethinking. Hence, my argument for a dialogue as being useful for both sides.
What would such a discussion end up focusing on? A few quick thoughts....
1. The role of the institutional church, in particular as it relates to her special offices. Sometimes the neocalvinist emphasis on vocation, the priesthood of all believers, and a resistance to dualism can result in a de-emphasis on the way that Christ as prophet, priest, and king through the special offices in the church, ministers to his people.
2. The place of theology as "the queen of the sciences" and how it relates to other disciplines.
3. The connection between common grace and special grace. Some of the discussions here will bring us into how we understand social change rather than theology proper and it is especially here, with the emphasis on social institutions, that the neocalvinists have some insights which will benefit the neopuritans. The idea that all we have to do is change hearts, and social change sort of naturally will proceed after the majority of people believe, has been well proven by history to be a flawed theory. Changed societies require more than changed hearts, and changed societies do matter to God. The "one thing needful" is hardly the only thing needful.
There is much more to be said, and quick blog postings are hardly the appropriate forum in which this debate with all of its nuance can be properly had. Still, I thank Mr. Robinson for highlighting the issue and look forward to the opportunity when we may have the opportunity to discuss these matters further in person I hope.
Wednesday, 15 April, 2009
VanPelt on Independent Education
Today's National Post contains an interesting article on independent schools, with extensive quotes from Prof. Deani VanPelt, a good friend, Professor at Redeemer University, and a lead researcher on Cardus' "Outcomes of Christian Education" project.
"Though parents who choose private religious schools often have lower incomes, Ms. Van Pelt said their commitment to private education - borne of the high value they place on faith and a lack of religious options in most public systems - exceeds that of their academically inclined counterparts. Recession or not, parents will ensure their kids receive whatever education they deem best, she said.
"I had parents telling me in private religious schools that [tuition] is the first cheque they pay and then they figure everything else out after that. It's so important to them," she said. "[So] if people's income just goes down marginally, then perhaps they'll continue to choose the private schools."
Deani highlights another important aspect of Christian education, namely the community that parents want their kids to be part of.
Ms. Van Pelt said the ability to foster that sense of community remains private education's most distinct advantage and will continue to draw parents of all persuasions and incomes.
PS Professor VanPelt is two days away from defending her doctoral dissertation and is soon to become Dr. VanPelt. We are rooting for you Deani!
"Though parents who choose private religious schools often have lower incomes, Ms. Van Pelt said their commitment to private education - borne of the high value they place on faith and a lack of religious options in most public systems - exceeds that of their academically inclined counterparts. Recession or not, parents will ensure their kids receive whatever education they deem best, she said.
"I had parents telling me in private religious schools that [tuition] is the first cheque they pay and then they figure everything else out after that. It's so important to them," she said. "[So] if people's income just goes down marginally, then perhaps they'll continue to choose the private schools."
Deani highlights another important aspect of Christian education, namely the community that parents want their kids to be part of.
Ms. Van Pelt said the ability to foster that sense of community remains private education's most distinct advantage and will continue to draw parents of all persuasions and incomes.
"Overwhelmingly the stories suggest that parents today, in 21st century Ontario, want an educational space that respects the overall well-being of their child. It's more than religion. It's more than academic achievement," she said."
PS Professor VanPelt is two days away from defending her doctoral dissertation and is soon to become Dr. VanPelt. We are rooting for you Deani!
Tuesday, 14 April, 2009
Canada and the US compared
The merits and demerits of the Canadian and American systems of government has been a subject of my musings over the past few years. I guess it was the American judicial system as it was on display during the Conrad Black case which surprised me (in a negative way) with its built in bias towards prosecution success over fair process.
I notice that John VanHeyking has an interesting post on the difference in understandings of responsible government that exists on either side of the border.
.
For the entire post, see here.
I notice that John VanHeyking has an interesting post on the difference in understandings of responsible government that exists on either side of the border.
Contrary to the popular image of the Founders as dedicated to statism, they thought their system of responsible government offered greater individual liberty than the U.S. system. The Canadian Founders agree with their American counterparts with the end of politics, but they thought their system of responsible government offered a more effective means of obtaining it. The idea of responsible government is that government (the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) are sitting members of the House of Commons, and government needs constantly to secure and maintain the support of the House.
.
..In learning about responsible government, students also learn that it differs from democracy. Further, they learn the wisdom of having institutional restraints—or what Tocqueville describes as forms—on democracy. They learn that not all problems democracies face can be solved by creating even more democracy. They learn the age-old wisdom that a mixed form of government, guided by a statesman's practical wisdom, may be the best practical solution to political problems.
For the entire post, see here.
Saturday, 11 April, 2009
He is Risen!
The Resurrection
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple,who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic,"Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"—and that he had said these things to her.
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple,who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic,"Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"—and that he had said these things to her.
Friday, 10 April, 2009
Welcome aboard... southwest style
(h/t Brian Harskamp) -- Never yet have I flown southwest but this makes me look forward to it....
Wednesday, 8 April, 2009
Using the News to Make Mischief and Sell Books
The weekend story regarding the rift between former PM Mulroney was one that I had a hard time making sense of. It was hard to see how this feud, which I think is quite real, advantages either side by being spilled out in public. This morning former Mulroney speechwriter Ian MacDonald speculatesthat it is a story planted in order to promote a just-released book.
Whether there is any truth to this theory I have no way of knowing but it makes a lot more sense than the other possible theories that come to mind. Just another reminder that what we read in the newspaper is not all about news and that the game we call politics can be a pretty cynical one some days.
I'll bet it was author Bob Plamondon, as a clever ploy to promote his new book, Blue Thunder, on Conservative leaders from Macdonald to Harper. The book was launched last night, appropriately enough at an Ottawa pub named for Sir John A., who was known to take the occasional libation.
The story of the Harper-Mulroney rift was perfectly timed for the launch of the book. What better way to draw attention to it than highlighting a split between the Harper and Mulroney camps, between the Reform and Progressive Conservative wings of the Tory party?
Whether there is any truth to this theory I have no way of knowing but it makes a lot more sense than the other possible theories that come to mind. Just another reminder that what we read in the newspaper is not all about news and that the game we call politics can be a pretty cynical one some days.
Monday, 6 April, 2009
Election anyone?
It's time to update my occasional political prognostications, prompted today by a piece in the Hill Times that suggests Mr. Ignatieff is "torn between those who say they have the momentum now and should pull the plug to capitalize on this opportunity, and those who argue that he should use the summer to raise money and build the party infrastructure for a successful election campaign." The Conservatives, meanwhile, are reportedly ready to run negative ads on Ignatieff in order to fill out Canadians perceptions on him. While Ignatieff and Harper are running neck and neck in their positive ratings, Mr. Harper's negatives outweight Ignatieff's by a significant margin in recent polls.
A quick tour of the debate as I suspect it is happening in the various caucus rooms...
The Bloc... continues to insist that they will deal with the government on an issue by issue basis. In order for Mr. Ignatieff to defeat the government, he needs the support of all the parties. Negotiating the Bloc's agreement may be tricky. I don't pretend the on-the-ground machinery politics of Quebec that well but my sense is the Conservative collapse and Liberal rise in the Quebec polls may suggest the Bloc are better off with the status quo for a bit than defeating the government.
The NDP... An irony here in that an election would probably damage the NDP more than anyone, but they have backed themselves into a corner where they lack any credibility in opposing a Liberal non-confidence motion. I think the question facing the NDP remains the same as it was in January --does Thomas Mulclair becomes the next NDP leader before or after the next election?
The Liberals... I have a hard time seeing Mr. Ignatieff go to the polls too early. While it may be tempting based on the polls -- as it was for Stephen Harper in the May 2004 non-confidence vote in which the Martin government survived thanks to the votes of Belinda Stronach and Chuck Cadman -- there is an almost universal acknowledgment in hindsight that had an election occurred then, the Liberals would have likely won. I think for the Liberals to be seen as taking advantage of the current economic conditions and forcing an election would be similar foolishness.
The Conservatives.... for the inverse reasons outlined for the Liberals above plus a bank account full of money and superior organization, the Conservatives would not be opposed to a spring election. However, an sniff of them forcing it would cause consternation among voters and within the party, where after last Novembers tactics on party financing, the party leadership is not as insulated from criticism as it once was.
Bottom line -- put away the campaigning shoes, and get ready for a prolonged media / advertising war as both sides try to introduce us to Michael Ignatieff. Unless there is a surprise scandal or other intervening development, it will be fall or more likely, budget 2010 that triggers our next march to the polls.
A quick tour of the debate as I suspect it is happening in the various caucus rooms...
The Bloc... continues to insist that they will deal with the government on an issue by issue basis. In order for Mr. Ignatieff to defeat the government, he needs the support of all the parties. Negotiating the Bloc's agreement may be tricky. I don't pretend the on-the-ground machinery politics of Quebec that well but my sense is the Conservative collapse and Liberal rise in the Quebec polls may suggest the Bloc are better off with the status quo for a bit than defeating the government.
The NDP... An irony here in that an election would probably damage the NDP more than anyone, but they have backed themselves into a corner where they lack any credibility in opposing a Liberal non-confidence motion. I think the question facing the NDP remains the same as it was in January --does Thomas Mulclair becomes the next NDP leader before or after the next election?
The Liberals... I have a hard time seeing Mr. Ignatieff go to the polls too early. While it may be tempting based on the polls -- as it was for Stephen Harper in the May 2004 non-confidence vote in which the Martin government survived thanks to the votes of Belinda Stronach and Chuck Cadman -- there is an almost universal acknowledgment in hindsight that had an election occurred then, the Liberals would have likely won. I think for the Liberals to be seen as taking advantage of the current economic conditions and forcing an election would be similar foolishness.
The Conservatives.... for the inverse reasons outlined for the Liberals above plus a bank account full of money and superior organization, the Conservatives would not be opposed to a spring election. However, an sniff of them forcing it would cause consternation among voters and within the party, where after last Novembers tactics on party financing, the party leadership is not as insulated from criticism as it once was.
Bottom line -- put away the campaigning shoes, and get ready for a prolonged media / advertising war as both sides try to introduce us to Michael Ignatieff. Unless there is a surprise scandal or other intervening development, it will be fall or more likely, budget 2010 that triggers our next march to the polls.
Saturday, 4 April, 2009
Calgary City Soul
This past week has been a busy one as the Cardus leadership team of President Michael VanPelt, Director of Operations Milton Friesen, Director of Development Brian Harskamp, along with Senior Fellow Peter Menzies and myself were all in town for a series of important meetings. Many of them involved presenting and cultivating support for a Calgary-focused project in our Stained Glass Urbanism project entitled "Calgary City Soul."
A Calgary Herald reporter was in attendance at a breakfast held on Wednesday and his report is in today's paper.
Meanwhile, back at the Hamilton office, the rest of the Cardus team was busy putting the final touches on the redesign of our weekly Comment offering, which went out yesterday for the first time in the new ABCD format. Check out their good work here.
A Calgary Herald reporter was in attendance at a breakfast held on Wednesday and his report is in today's paper.
Meanwhile, back at the Hamilton office, the rest of the Cardus team was busy putting the final touches on the redesign of our weekly Comment offering, which went out yesterday for the first time in the new ABCD format. Check out their good work here.
Friday, 3 April, 2009
Do Humility and Politics Mix?
Someone opined to me, in response to yesterday's post, that they were uncomfortable with the "muddiness" and "encouragement not to take clearly defined positions" that they interpreted from my comments. I understand that criticism and clearly, wishy-washiness in the name of pragmatism is one ditch into which those who travel the political road can easily fall. However, I think we need to be conscious of the ditch on the other side of the road into which we also can stumble. Yesterday's post was an attempt to think out loud as to how to be balanced.
Dr. Joel Beeke invited me pre-publication to comment on an editorial which was published in the January 2009 issue of the Banner of Sovereign Truth magazine. In addition to his four points -- God determines the (a) purpose (b) personnel (c) policies and (d) providence of government-- I suggested the insertion of a fifth point regarding the pride of politics, which he included in his final piece.
Dr. Joel Beeke invited me pre-publication to comment on an editorial which was published in the January 2009 issue of the Banner of Sovereign Truth magazine. In addition to his four points -- God determines the (a) purpose (b) personnel (c) policies and (d) providence of government-- I suggested the insertion of a fifth point regarding the pride of politics, which he included in his final piece.
God is displeased by the pride of government. This is a sin to which those directly involved in politics are particularly tempted, but it also is a sin to which voters are vulnerable. How easy it is for us to like the Pharisees of Luke 13, interpret the news events of our days in a way that makes definite conclusions and pronouncements regarding things we really are ignorant of. We are called to be obedient and faithful citizens, obeying God’s word, seeking the peace of the city in which God has caused us to live. (Jer. 29:7). We are not called to make final judgments about our leaders. In pride, we easily forget the limits of our own knowledge. As citizens, it was our duty to prayerfully evaluate the candidates that were presented for public office and to select those who seemed best suited to lead our land. We were called to do so using biblical criteria. Against this measure, they and we all fall woefully short. But focusing on ourselves, must we not admit that sometimes we succumb to the temptation to get caught up in the emotion of the moment, to elevate our judgments as being more definitive than they really are. Our conclusions are based on what the media reports and we find out from the election propaganda, sources we realize have their biases. Like Samuel having to choose from among the sons of Jesse, we can only look at the outward appearance. With such a limited perspective and knowing our the limitations of our own hearts, we should take care to neither lionize nor demonize candidates about whom, in spite of all of the media focus, we can only scarcely get to know. Among the many reasons for the decline of a Christian witness and voice in our culture is the sometimes smugness and arrogance with which we have communicated our judgments to our neighbours, judgments which in some occasions, have been proven by subsequent history to be painfully wrong. In our political communication too, we must show something of the mind of Christ.
Thursday, 2 April, 2009
Enlarging the Possible
Those involved in any group decision-making process face the question regularly -- how hard do you push for something you think is right and proper when it is clear that those around you do not share your view? I have sat in ecclesiastical meetings, organizational meetings, and public policy settings where I have had to make decisions which in one way or other reflected this tension. To date, I not found any neat formula to sort through these issues seamlessly.
Andrew Coyne has an interesting take on this in this week's Macleans. He rightly points out that "fanatical pragmatism" is no less a dogma than "fanatical orthodoxy." He suggests a three-fold test that has in mind, not simply choosing between principle and pragmatism, but "enlarging the possible." His argument is framed in the political context but its application could be made more broadly....
I think his formulation is helpful, recognizing that there are areas of personal conscience and belief so fundamental, that one needs to be prepared to stand on principle no matter the result, but also be prepared to face the consequences for that. In some cases, that may mean withdrawing from participation in a particular group.
We (meaning my Cardus colleagues and I)have spent many hours in recent years debating how to "translate" our convictions into public language such that we can engage the broader conversation (by which I mean saying things in a way that neither those who agree with us will immediately cheer, since we do not simply default to familiar jargon, nor which our opponents can immediately dismiss, since it forces a re-framing of the issue -- hence generating honest intellectual engagement and dialogue.)
I am convinced that a significant reason for the difficult dilemmas Christians often find ourselves in when engaging in public square conversation is that we have usually been behind in the language game, reacting to issues framed by others. If our aim is "enlarge the possible," we often need to be avoid the default of familiar jargon which ends up pigeon-holing and closing possibilities. That is harder work than it first appears, but the process forces us to consider our own positions more deeply. It still will often result in debates in which others will disagree, but it can also open possibilities that presently don't appear. Recognizing that in this world, even as we strive for true justice, we often need to settle for "proximate justice", the greater challenge may become having the patience, perseverance and wisdom to work through the messy business of engaging our neighbours rather than just the frustration of unseemly choices.
Andrew Coyne has an interesting take on this in this week's Macleans. He rightly points out that "fanatical pragmatism" is no less a dogma than "fanatical orthodoxy." He suggests a three-fold test that has in mind, not simply choosing between principle and pragmatism, but "enlarging the possible." His argument is framed in the political context but its application could be made more broadly....
One, is it right? Is it possible we could be wrong? Or could policies that were once right need adjusting, in light of changing circumstances?
Two, is it relevant? It may be the right answer, but not to a question the public is asking. To be sure, leadership sometimes means putting questions to the public that had not occurred to it until now. But a party that does not address itself to the issues on the public’s mind will soon find no one is listening.
Three, is it a priority? There are always lots of things that need doing. But there is only so much that can be done at one time, and the public’s appetite for change is not infinite.
But: if, on reflection, you have reason to think you’re (still) right, on an issue that is relevant to the public, and in a matter of some urgency, then what is the excuse for inaction? Yes, compromise is a virtue. But it is not the only virtue. Yes, you win elections by capturing the middle ground. But that does not mean, as so many seem to assume, simply moving to the middle: the truly successful politician moves the middle to him.
There is a third alternative, in other words, between the dogmatism of the GOP and the cynicism of the Conservatives. It consists in political entrepreneurship: neither pandering to public opinion, nor ignoring it, but persuading the public to a point of view it did not previously hold. For politics is not, in the end, simply the art of the possible. It is the art of enlarging the possible.
I think his formulation is helpful, recognizing that there are areas of personal conscience and belief so fundamental, that one needs to be prepared to stand on principle no matter the result, but also be prepared to face the consequences for that. In some cases, that may mean withdrawing from participation in a particular group.
We (meaning my Cardus colleagues and I)have spent many hours in recent years debating how to "translate" our convictions into public language such that we can engage the broader conversation (by which I mean saying things in a way that neither those who agree with us will immediately cheer, since we do not simply default to familiar jargon, nor which our opponents can immediately dismiss, since it forces a re-framing of the issue -- hence generating honest intellectual engagement and dialogue.)
I am convinced that a significant reason for the difficult dilemmas Christians often find ourselves in when engaging in public square conversation is that we have usually been behind in the language game, reacting to issues framed by others. If our aim is "enlarge the possible," we often need to be avoid the default of familiar jargon which ends up pigeon-holing and closing possibilities. That is harder work than it first appears, but the process forces us to consider our own positions more deeply. It still will often result in debates in which others will disagree, but it can also open possibilities that presently don't appear. Recognizing that in this world, even as we strive for true justice, we often need to settle for "proximate justice", the greater challenge may become having the patience, perseverance and wisdom to work through the messy business of engaging our neighbours rather than just the frustration of unseemly choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
