The most conservative estimates of the new converts to Christianity is 500,000; there is a new church built every month. Calvinist Christianity has a culture of phenomenal industry. Calvin himself, in his time in Geneva, preached every day and twice on Sundays: shorthand writers at the foot of his pulpit took down 108 volumes of his sermons, though most of these have been lost and his reputation rests on the books and pamphlets that he wrote himself. In China now, this kind of Christianity is seen as forward-looking, rational, intellectually serious, and favourable to making money.
"Very soon", said Dr Tan, "Christians will become the majority of university students … that could happen."
It would be astonishing if China were to become a great power in the Christian world, as well as in the economic one. But things just as strange have happened in the past. Who could have foreseen, when Augustine was writing those huge books now translated into Chinese, that barbarous Europe would become the centre of Christian civilisation, and his homeland in North Africa would become entirely Muslim?
Wednesday, 31 March, 2010
Calvinism in China
With a hat-tip to my facebook friends, who in a trail discussing the Christian Science Monitor's March 27th column on the advance of Calvinism in North America, linked this May 27,2009 column from the London Guardian on the advance of Calvinism in China. I recommend hitting the link and reading the whole piece.
DaVinci's Resume
My attention was recently brought to an internet site that contains a copy of a letter sent by Leonardo da Vinci to the Duke of Milan in 1482. I thought it a most interesting way to sell oneself, explaining the contribution that could be made to war and peace, and pass it on for your perusal.
"Most Illustrious Lord, Having now sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who proclaim themselves skilled contrivers of instruments of war, and that the invention and operation of the said instruments are nothing different from those in common use: I shall endeavor, without prejudice to any one else, to explain myself to your Excellency, showing your Lordship my secret, and then offering them to your best pleasure and approbation to work with effect at opportune moments on all those things which, in part, shall be briefly noted below.
1. I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning and destroying those of the enemy.
2. I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.
3. If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.
4. Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.
5. And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.
6. I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.
7. I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.
8. In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.
9. Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvellous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.
10. In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.
11. I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.
Again, the bronze horse may be taken in hand, which is to be to the immortal glory and eternal honor of the prince your father of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Sforza.
And if any of the above-named things seem to anyone to be impossible or not feasible, I am most ready to make the experiment in your park, or in whatever place may please your Excellency - to whom I comment myself with the utmost humility, etc."
Monday, 29 March, 2010
The Environment through a Creation-Fall-Redemption Lens
I contributed a piece to our denominational publication for youth, the print edition of which was distributed in our church yesterday. Entitled "On Being Green", it seems an appropriate entry as a follow-up to my Saturday's Earth Day screed.
On Being Green
Green. For a long time, this colour was a metaphor for money. Recently, the brand has changed. “Being green” is almost universally understood as being referencing the natural environment and engaging in practices that consciously protect it.
The evidence of the world “going green” was on display during the December 2009 Copenhagen conference. With unprecedented build-up and under the spotlight of global media, world leaders took turns to publicly decry global warming and its catastrophic impact on the planet, all-the-while privately being unable to reach any meaningful agreement regarding a plan to counteract it. Skeptics and “climate change deniers” considered this a good thing. Most environmentalists, on the other hand, were disturbed. And given that many in the environmental movement express their concerns with language of religious zeal – even if in many cases this the religion of a secular fundamentalism – talk of the “world as we know it coming to an end” and apocalyptic predictions regarding what will be faced in our lifetimes were at least for a time the stuff of everyday news.
Most Youth Messenger readers recognize the idolatry and misplaced religious zeal which accompany this issue. However there is also a nagging sense among many that simply exposing the misplaced zeal of others is not an adequate response. “Christians ought to be environmentally concerned?” one frustrated young person from our churches asked me last year. “Why is it that many who call themselves Christian are coming so late to this issue, and then only critiquing or copying how non-believers are dealing with this issue, rather than being able to articulate a clear alternative approach?”
This short article cannot adequately address the question but as with most complex current issues, it is helpful to consider the creation-fall-redemption lens to identify various Scriptural considerations that ought to influence our answer. These principles taken together provide valuable building blocks for developing a more biblically-informed perspective on the issue.
Genesis tells us that the creation was “very good” and pleased God greatly. The natural beauty of the creation is highlighted for us alongside its functional utility: the trees of the garden were beautiful to look at as well as providers of abundant food. (Genesis 2:9). The human assignment was to tend and care for the garden but it was more than that. “Let them have dominion” was God’s word to Adam (Genesis 1:28). In his task to subdue the earth, mankind was to combine creativity and industriousness with the resources of creation to develop the creation. Genesis 4 provides an account of the trades and tools that were soon developed (with both musical instruments and blacksmithing on that early list). With this in view, it is proper to say that all of the discoveries of science and technological advances, the aesthetics of art and the insights of the academy that we consider “good” and worthwhile, were already present in embryonic form in the perfect Eden. It is a mistake to place the unspoiled creation – beautiful mountains and sprawling meadows teeming with wildlife – as belonging to God’s good creation while considering things that are man-made as being a lesser part of the creation. There is in much of the environmental movement romanticism about rural life and being “closer to nature” as if that is somehow closer to God’s intention. Had Adam and Even not fallen, there would have been technology and the progress of civilization as discovering the riches God had put into the creation is part of the human task and the divine purpose for creation.
The fall, of course, spoiled all of this. When the first city was named, God was not acknowledged as the giver of the technology. Instead Cain called the city after the name of his son (Genesis 4:17). The pride, wastage, and sinful application of so much of creation is evident enough to all of us. But the fall also affected the physical environment. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve stewarded the garden without worry for thorns and thistles. After the fall, the curse came upon the earth. Now the winds not only created a comforting breeze and cool of the evening in which God and man had previously enjoyed their communion, but also the destructive hurricanes, tornados and tsunamis that wreaked havoc on this cursed creation. The polluting effects of original sin not only affect humans so that they are naturally inclined to all evil, but also the natural environment is impacted by the fall. The creation is now groaning (Romans 8:22) under the curse.
But just as God’s children long for the day when their battle with sin and its effects will be over, so the creation is longing for the day when there will again be a perfect balance and the curse will be undone. It is telling that the various texts which speak of fire at judgment day do not use the term for destructive fire but use words that speak to a refiner’s fire. The curse will be burned off as dross and the creation will be restored. But the picture of the future creation provided for us in Revelation is not a return to an Edenic garden but rather a picture of a city, where the fullness of creation’s potential will be on God-glorifying display. He is not coming to make new things; He is coming to make all things new!
These biblical truths provide us a different context for evaluating the environmental debate of our day. The world has a purpose and is in the care of a providential God is actively caring for it. Both apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world and the romanticized ideal of living closer to nature are themes which ignore God and His revelation regarding the purpose and plan for creation. That does not justify indifference or a warrant to not be good stewards of the creation. Quite the opposite! It is out of an expression of love for God and a love for what He has made and loves that the believer is called to take care of the creation. An attitude that “it makes no difference, God is going to judge and destroy this sinful earth anyways” (which sadly is too often heard from Christian circles) is an unbiblical and God-dishonoring attitude. It is the equivalent of indifference to sin in our personal life, which Paul argues against in Romans 6:1-3.
Sadly, much of the green agenda today has become mixed up with an idolatry serving the earth, a wealth-transfer scheme from the developed world to the not-yet-developed world on the premise that development is bad, and a hubris of scientists with an agenda that causes them to break their own rules and essentially lie and propagandize rather than engage in research. Still, the sins of those around us do not warrant a self-righteous indifference on those who confess Christ’s name. It is my Father’s world and He has called me to care for it, listen to its declaration of His glory and see in it the active creative, providential, and redemptive work which He is carrying out, with the expectation of living as a sanctified saint in a renewed creation throughout all eternity.
On Being Green
Green. For a long time, this colour was a metaphor for money. Recently, the brand has changed. “Being green” is almost universally understood as being referencing the natural environment and engaging in practices that consciously protect it.
The evidence of the world “going green” was on display during the December 2009 Copenhagen conference. With unprecedented build-up and under the spotlight of global media, world leaders took turns to publicly decry global warming and its catastrophic impact on the planet, all-the-while privately being unable to reach any meaningful agreement regarding a plan to counteract it. Skeptics and “climate change deniers” considered this a good thing. Most environmentalists, on the other hand, were disturbed. And given that many in the environmental movement express their concerns with language of religious zeal – even if in many cases this the religion of a secular fundamentalism – talk of the “world as we know it coming to an end” and apocalyptic predictions regarding what will be faced in our lifetimes were at least for a time the stuff of everyday news.
Most Youth Messenger readers recognize the idolatry and misplaced religious zeal which accompany this issue. However there is also a nagging sense among many that simply exposing the misplaced zeal of others is not an adequate response. “Christians ought to be environmentally concerned?” one frustrated young person from our churches asked me last year. “Why is it that many who call themselves Christian are coming so late to this issue, and then only critiquing or copying how non-believers are dealing with this issue, rather than being able to articulate a clear alternative approach?”
This short article cannot adequately address the question but as with most complex current issues, it is helpful to consider the creation-fall-redemption lens to identify various Scriptural considerations that ought to influence our answer. These principles taken together provide valuable building blocks for developing a more biblically-informed perspective on the issue.
Genesis tells us that the creation was “very good” and pleased God greatly. The natural beauty of the creation is highlighted for us alongside its functional utility: the trees of the garden were beautiful to look at as well as providers of abundant food. (Genesis 2:9). The human assignment was to tend and care for the garden but it was more than that. “Let them have dominion” was God’s word to Adam (Genesis 1:28). In his task to subdue the earth, mankind was to combine creativity and industriousness with the resources of creation to develop the creation. Genesis 4 provides an account of the trades and tools that were soon developed (with both musical instruments and blacksmithing on that early list). With this in view, it is proper to say that all of the discoveries of science and technological advances, the aesthetics of art and the insights of the academy that we consider “good” and worthwhile, were already present in embryonic form in the perfect Eden. It is a mistake to place the unspoiled creation – beautiful mountains and sprawling meadows teeming with wildlife – as belonging to God’s good creation while considering things that are man-made as being a lesser part of the creation. There is in much of the environmental movement romanticism about rural life and being “closer to nature” as if that is somehow closer to God’s intention. Had Adam and Even not fallen, there would have been technology and the progress of civilization as discovering the riches God had put into the creation is part of the human task and the divine purpose for creation.
The fall, of course, spoiled all of this. When the first city was named, God was not acknowledged as the giver of the technology. Instead Cain called the city after the name of his son (Genesis 4:17). The pride, wastage, and sinful application of so much of creation is evident enough to all of us. But the fall also affected the physical environment. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve stewarded the garden without worry for thorns and thistles. After the fall, the curse came upon the earth. Now the winds not only created a comforting breeze and cool of the evening in which God and man had previously enjoyed their communion, but also the destructive hurricanes, tornados and tsunamis that wreaked havoc on this cursed creation. The polluting effects of original sin not only affect humans so that they are naturally inclined to all evil, but also the natural environment is impacted by the fall. The creation is now groaning (Romans 8:22) under the curse.
But just as God’s children long for the day when their battle with sin and its effects will be over, so the creation is longing for the day when there will again be a perfect balance and the curse will be undone. It is telling that the various texts which speak of fire at judgment day do not use the term for destructive fire but use words that speak to a refiner’s fire. The curse will be burned off as dross and the creation will be restored. But the picture of the future creation provided for us in Revelation is not a return to an Edenic garden but rather a picture of a city, where the fullness of creation’s potential will be on God-glorifying display. He is not coming to make new things; He is coming to make all things new!
These biblical truths provide us a different context for evaluating the environmental debate of our day. The world has a purpose and is in the care of a providential God is actively caring for it. Both apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world and the romanticized ideal of living closer to nature are themes which ignore God and His revelation regarding the purpose and plan for creation. That does not justify indifference or a warrant to not be good stewards of the creation. Quite the opposite! It is out of an expression of love for God and a love for what He has made and loves that the believer is called to take care of the creation. An attitude that “it makes no difference, God is going to judge and destroy this sinful earth anyways” (which sadly is too often heard from Christian circles) is an unbiblical and God-dishonoring attitude. It is the equivalent of indifference to sin in our personal life, which Paul argues against in Romans 6:1-3.
Sadly, much of the green agenda today has become mixed up with an idolatry serving the earth, a wealth-transfer scheme from the developed world to the not-yet-developed world on the premise that development is bad, and a hubris of scientists with an agenda that causes them to break their own rules and essentially lie and propagandize rather than engage in research. Still, the sins of those around us do not warrant a self-righteous indifference on those who confess Christ’s name. It is my Father’s world and He has called me to care for it, listen to its declaration of His glory and see in it the active creative, providential, and redemptive work which He is carrying out, with the expectation of living as a sanctified saint in a renewed creation throughout all eternity.
Saturday, 27 March, 2010
Earth Hour Hubris
So today is Earth Day and we are all supposed to genuflect by shutting off our lights for one hour this evening. My thoughts on this haven't changed from my blog entry on this occasion two years ago. However, as I read the papers this morning, I was wondering what is it about our times in which we are so willing to tie a particular behaviour to a belief, and create our own tests of orthodoxy for others.
It isn't just earth day, where the good intentions to raise the profile of environmental issues by a US Senator forty years ago have now been translated into a guilt-trip of environmental heresy for all those who don't de-light this evening. This type of guilt-tripping is practiced every day, with face-bookers being among the prime culprits. ("If you don't put this into your status line, you really don't agree with me on this. Sadly only a few of you will, really showing how much more committed I am to the cause than you are.") It is familiar to those of us in religious circles, who are all-to-used to being accepted (or condemned) because a particular lifestyle practice we engage in (or don't) becomes the litmus test for orthodoxy. And, as I was reminded by Conrad Black's column in the National Post this morning, it has also been an expression of atheist hubris.
My point is not that belief and behaviour can be divorced - they clearly cannot. To say you believe one thing and act in contradiction to it is a demonstration of a lack of understanding (sadly there are too many examples of naively life wanderers who haven't reflected about what their beliefs really imply) or of hypocrisy. But that is something quite different than insisting that adherence to a principle can only be expressed in one way. There are many ways that those who respect the environment can express that belief and participating in an earth day exercise in just one of them. Count me among those who will be taking a pass, in part as my own expression of distaste at the hubris of those who would put me on a guilt trip for this position.
It isn't just earth day, where the good intentions to raise the profile of environmental issues by a US Senator forty years ago have now been translated into a guilt-trip of environmental heresy for all those who don't de-light this evening. This type of guilt-tripping is practiced every day, with face-bookers being among the prime culprits. ("If you don't put this into your status line, you really don't agree with me on this. Sadly only a few of you will, really showing how much more committed I am to the cause than you are.") It is familiar to those of us in religious circles, who are all-to-used to being accepted (or condemned) because a particular lifestyle practice we engage in (or don't) becomes the litmus test for orthodoxy. And, as I was reminded by Conrad Black's column in the National Post this morning, it has also been an expression of atheist hubris.
(Hitchens) reminds me of the young Mussolini shouting to his followers: "There is no God! If there is, may he strike me down now! You have five minutes ... Time's up God!" I have often wondered if the Duce thought of that bravura as, bearded and hiding in a German army uniform among real Wehrmacht evacuees in an open truck, he tried to flee Italy at the end of the war, before he was apprehended, quietly led off the truck, was perfectly docile while briefly detained and summarily executed, and was then displayed, hanging upside down over a Milan gas station, his corpse desecrated by the Italian masses who had screamed their adulation of him for 20 years before.
My point is not that belief and behaviour can be divorced - they clearly cannot. To say you believe one thing and act in contradiction to it is a demonstration of a lack of understanding (sadly there are too many examples of naively life wanderers who haven't reflected about what their beliefs really imply) or of hypocrisy. But that is something quite different than insisting that adherence to a principle can only be expressed in one way. There are many ways that those who respect the environment can express that belief and participating in an earth day exercise in just one of them. Count me among those who will be taking a pass, in part as my own expression of distaste at the hubris of those who would put me on a guilt trip for this position.
Friday, 26 March, 2010
On the Other Hand.....
Two quick thoughts in defence of organizations I am not naturally attuned to defending....
1. The Federal Liberals - They have taken a lot of abuse in the media regarding not having their federal caucus of MPs fully participating in this weekend's Thinkers Conference. While there are lots of arguments to be made as to why they should be there, the reality remains that any opinions put forward by MPs which is contrary to Liberal policy will be seized upon by the media and other political parties. Thinking out loud is a dangerous occupation for elected officials and the political manager side of me understands the hesitation of Liberal organizers in having the full caucus present, even if all of the other concerns could be addressed. Not saying this is the only reason - just one consideration that has not got much play.
2. The Canadian Association of University Teachers - The CAUT is hardly my favourite organization, and their conclusion regarding academic freedom and faith-based institutions is misguided. That being said, their letter to the University of Ottawa suggesting an apology to Anne Coulter and an assurance that freedom of speech is protected on the campus is a welcome and pleasant surprise.
1. The Federal Liberals - They have taken a lot of abuse in the media regarding not having their federal caucus of MPs fully participating in this weekend's Thinkers Conference. While there are lots of arguments to be made as to why they should be there, the reality remains that any opinions put forward by MPs which is contrary to Liberal policy will be seized upon by the media and other political parties. Thinking out loud is a dangerous occupation for elected officials and the political manager side of me understands the hesitation of Liberal organizers in having the full caucus present, even if all of the other concerns could be addressed. Not saying this is the only reason - just one consideration that has not got much play.
2. The Canadian Association of University Teachers - The CAUT is hardly my favourite organization, and their conclusion regarding academic freedom and faith-based institutions is misguided. That being said, their letter to the University of Ottawa suggesting an apology to Anne Coulter and an assurance that freedom of speech is protected on the campus is a welcome and pleasant surprise.
Thursday, 25 March, 2010
Liberal Woes
I won't bother linking the array of columns lampooning Mr. Ignatieff for the failure of the Tuesday motion regarding maternal health and the thinkers conference being held this weekend. Suffice it to say when a motion in the House of Commons is defeated by your own party, it indicates mismanagement and a lack of political antennae. The timing of this with the exclusion of the caucus from the thinkers conference this weekend and I am certain (just speculation - no inside knowledge but I am certain none-the-less) that the esprit the corps in the Liberal caucus is less than robust at present.
Don Martin earlier this week highlighted how the upcoming speaker's ruling on the release of Afghan documents may provide Mr. Harper an opportunity to force an election. It sounds Machiavellian and again is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that more than a few Liberal backbenchers are doing their own career planning, wondering if it makes more sense to get the troubles of an election out of the way soon, figuring that if they can hold onto their seat in a Liberal loss, position themselves well with the leader who will inevitably replace Ignatieff, and aim for a cabinet position after a 2015 election when the new leader will be taking on Stephen Harper's replacement as Conservative leader. They are practicing campaign lines arguing that a fresh government needs to replace the tired Conservatives after almost a decade in office. This is not a prediction - a lot can awry and change matters even in the very short term. Just saying that some Liberals are thinking along these lines today.
Don Martin earlier this week highlighted how the upcoming speaker's ruling on the release of Afghan documents may provide Mr. Harper an opportunity to force an election. It sounds Machiavellian and again is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that more than a few Liberal backbenchers are doing their own career planning, wondering if it makes more sense to get the troubles of an election out of the way soon, figuring that if they can hold onto their seat in a Liberal loss, position themselves well with the leader who will inevitably replace Ignatieff, and aim for a cabinet position after a 2015 election when the new leader will be taking on Stephen Harper's replacement as Conservative leader. They are practicing campaign lines arguing that a fresh government needs to replace the tired Conservatives after almost a decade in office. This is not a prediction - a lot can awry and change matters even in the very short term. Just saying that some Liberals are thinking along these lines today.
Wednesday, 24 March, 2010
Abortion Motion Backfires
Andrea Mrozek from the Institute of Marriage and the Family, has put together a helpful backgrounder on the lead-up to yesterday's vote on abortion in the Canadian House of Commons. As various columns point out today, this is a case of the Liberals trying to play politics with a contentious issue trying to get the public conversation back to the "scary Conservative agenda" narrative, and having it backfire on them.
Maternal madness
How an initiative to help mothers and children in the developing world became all about abortion
By Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communications, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would make maternal health a major initiative for Canada’s presidency of the G8 coming up in late June, it was to widespread approval. Since then, many have wondered how on earth a call for improved maternal and child health in the developing world could evolve into a debate about abortion.
The following chronology aims to clarify what happened.
January 20, 2010—Seven groups co-author a piece called “Putting the world’s poor on the G8 agenda.” Action Canada for Population and Development, an Ottawa-based lobby group that aims to expand access to abortion internationally is one of them. The other organizations are Plan Canada, Care Canada, Save the Children Canada, Results Canada, UNICEF and World Vision Canada. [1] This “Group of Seven” becomes known as the Canadian Coalition for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (CCMNCH).
January 26, 2010—Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces his intent to use Canada’s presidency of the G8 to focus on maternal and child health in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star. Prime Minister Harper indicates that solutions to high maternal and child mortality might include “clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health workers to care for women and deliver babies” [2]
January 26, 2010—Bev Oda, Minister for International Cooperation, hosts a round table question and answer session with media and the new Canadian Coalition for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. At this session a journalist draws attention to the presence of an abortion rights group (Action Canada) and asks whether reducing infant mortality should be about reducing the number of infants born. [3]
January 26, 2010—The Canadian Coalition for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health puts out a press release lauding the new initiative.
January 27-31, 2010—World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Stephen Harper gives a speech, which includes the focus on maternal and child health. Former UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS Stephen Lewis calls the speech and the initiative "a piece of crass, political opportunism." [4]
January 27-28, 2010—Pro-life groups Campaign Life Coalition, Lifesite News and ProWomanProLife ask questions about why the government would partner with an abortion rights group to fulfill a maternal health mandate. The government replies saying no partner and no mandate has been chosen. [5]
February 3, 2010—Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff hopes he can capitalize on perceived discord in the Conservative ranks on the issue of abortion. He demands the Conservatives include abortion in the maternal health strategy. In so doing, newspapers report that Ignatieff himself may have taken the boldest position of any Liberal Party leader. [6]
February 18, 2010—Michael Ignatieff’s support for abortion results in a Catholic magazine (Catholic Register) cover headline of “Ignatieff urges abortion for the world’s poor.” [7]
March 16, 2010—When asked whether the maternal health initiative will include “family planning,” a term which many abortion activists use as a catch-all phrase to include abortion, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon says no. “[The maternal health initiative] does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives,” Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee. [8] Cannon also discounts contraception at this time.
March 18, 2010—Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirms the initiative will include contraception. Minister Oda also highlights that “they will not close the door on any options that will save the lives of mothers and children, including contraception.” [9]
March 23, 2010—Bob Rae, Foreign Affairs Critic, brings forward an Opposition Motion, which, without mentioning the word abortion, aims to ensure abortion is part of Canada’s maternal health mandate. The motion said:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy; that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which
made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all nongovernmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning. [10]
The motion that should have easily passed with the support of all three Opposition parties is defeated, 144 to 138. Many Liberals did not come to the vote, and three Liberals, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo and John McKay, opposed the motion. These motions are non-binding political statements with no teeth, nonetheless, they are public relations events which hold some sway in the media and the general public. As a result, the Prime Minister may now rightfully claim at the G8 meetings that this matter has been debated in the Canadian House of Commons and that Canada does not include abortion as a part of maternal health. This will be important, as Action Canada for Population and Development had already initiated a lobby of foreign governments to reject any Canadian proposal that does not include abortion.
[11]
Many may complain that abortion became the focus, instead of a better understanding of maternal health internationally. However, women’s health is a generally politicized topic. Among takeaways from this tempest in a teapot for Canadians and Canadian politicians two stand out: Firstly, that women’s health and what that means remain hotly contested and secondly: abortion is a far from resolved issue in Canada.
Friday, 19 March, 2010
Public Good of Christian Education (2)
Last November, I provided a blog entry under this title referencing an article I had contributed to Christian Week. That article prompted a reporter working with the Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools to ask me some follow-up questions, with a resulting follow-up article being posted on the OACS website today.
Cardus director speaks to importance of recognizing Christian education as a public good
Integrated approach needed to achieve positive outcomes through education
Friday March 19, 2010 -- Michelle Strutzenberger
Ray Pennings says he believes Christian education should be viewed not simply as a private belonging of the Christian community, but rather as something that offers value for all society.
“Christian education properly carried out is inherently a public project that has the public good in view,” says Pennings, a senior fellow and director of research for the North American think tank Cardus.
“Our society is often confused by making the term ‘public’ to mean ‘state-funded.’ Just because some education is not state-funded, that does make it any less of a public good than that which is state-funded.”
Pennings adds that emphasizing the value of Christian education is particularly important if one understands that all education is about the formation of character and not just the dispensing of information.
“While parents have a clear role and primary responsibility for educating their children, education also prepares a child for their economic, citizenship and social responsibilities, both in understanding what they are and providing them the skills to carry them out,” Pennings tells OACS News.
In his article on the subject, “Contributing to the Public Good: The Importance of Christian Education to Society,” published by ChristianWeek, Pennings says that understanding education as a formation process has far-reaching implications for Christian educational institutions.
“A Christian education is not simply about sussing out the worldview implications underlying various ideas. It is about cultivating students’ passions, opening up for them the possibilities of the world and stimulating in them a sense of vocation,” Pennings writes.
For this to occur, more than just curriculum, academic standards or learning strategies must be attended to, he adds.
“We need to consider carefully both the role of the teacher as mentor and role model, and the community of learning in which this education occurs.”
While he isn’t sure effective tools exist for measuring how well Ontario’s schools, Christian or otherwise, are preparing today’s students for their economic, citizenship and social responsibilities, Pennings says he does see a need for a more integrated approach to working towards this objective.
“Even in Christian schools, we sometimes are guilty of silo discussions in which we deal with the categories of Christian doctrine, worldview, ethics and piety as separate categories, and do not pay enough attention to how these inform each other,” he says.
“I don’t think you can have a Christian worldview without a doctrinal component . . . and when we try to deal with ethical questions in a vacuum, we end up with moralistic hectoring which is neither convincing nor all that ethical.
“In short, we need to deal, also in an educational context, with these categories as parts of an integrated whole.”
It is vital to include in these discussions the sense that a relationship with God is to be personal not simply contractual, says Pennings.
Cardus director speaks to importance of recognizing Christian education as a public good
Integrated approach needed to achieve positive outcomes through education
Friday March 19, 2010 -- Michelle Strutzenberger
Ray Pennings says he believes Christian education should be viewed not simply as a private belonging of the Christian community, but rather as something that offers value for all society.
“Christian education properly carried out is inherently a public project that has the public good in view,” says Pennings, a senior fellow and director of research for the North American think tank Cardus.
“Our society is often confused by making the term ‘public’ to mean ‘state-funded.’ Just because some education is not state-funded, that does make it any less of a public good than that which is state-funded.”
Pennings adds that emphasizing the value of Christian education is particularly important if one understands that all education is about the formation of character and not just the dispensing of information.
“While parents have a clear role and primary responsibility for educating their children, education also prepares a child for their economic, citizenship and social responsibilities, both in understanding what they are and providing them the skills to carry them out,” Pennings tells OACS News.
In his article on the subject, “Contributing to the Public Good: The Importance of Christian Education to Society,” published by ChristianWeek, Pennings says that understanding education as a formation process has far-reaching implications for Christian educational institutions.
“A Christian education is not simply about sussing out the worldview implications underlying various ideas. It is about cultivating students’ passions, opening up for them the possibilities of the world and stimulating in them a sense of vocation,” Pennings writes.
For this to occur, more than just curriculum, academic standards or learning strategies must be attended to, he adds.
“We need to consider carefully both the role of the teacher as mentor and role model, and the community of learning in which this education occurs.”
While he isn’t sure effective tools exist for measuring how well Ontario’s schools, Christian or otherwise, are preparing today’s students for their economic, citizenship and social responsibilities, Pennings says he does see a need for a more integrated approach to working towards this objective.
“Even in Christian schools, we sometimes are guilty of silo discussions in which we deal with the categories of Christian doctrine, worldview, ethics and piety as separate categories, and do not pay enough attention to how these inform each other,” he says.
“I don’t think you can have a Christian worldview without a doctrinal component . . . and when we try to deal with ethical questions in a vacuum, we end up with moralistic hectoring which is neither convincing nor all that ethical.
“In short, we need to deal, also in an educational context, with these categories as parts of an integrated whole.”
It is vital to include in these discussions the sense that a relationship with God is to be personal not simply contractual, says Pennings.
Thursday, 18 March, 2010
Misc. Short HIts
In the midst of a week of various meetings, catch-up, and the drafting of some upcoming speeches so free time for creative thought on this page is limited. Hence a quick entry commenting on a few of this morning's headlines....
Bloggers are mostly male: Not quite sure that blogging provides the thrill in the extreme sport sort of way, is the modern equivalent of marking your territory, or a forum to express immature opinionated behaviour, but if Margaret Wente says so, it must be true.
Opposition Kudos: So those free mailings you receive from Members of Parliament (not always your own) affectionately known as "10 per centers" have been voted away by the Opposition saving the taxpayers up to $20 million per year. I find it ironic that the arguments against these were essentially that the Conservatives have improved the art of using these as politically effective ammunition much better than their opponents, hence the opponents vote to take away this weapon. Seems to me if you want to improve in the game of warfare, you learn from the opponent and copy their best practices. However, as a taxpayer, I fully agree this had degenerated into a public waste of time and money so kudos to their elimination.
Polls, Schmolls..... Another day, another poll. I would be lying if I said I did not pay attention to the polls but to me the top of line numbers are not that important. The poll question usually is, "If an election were held today...." Fact is, an election is not being held today and even if it were called today, a six week election campaign will follow. In our present political climate, the campaign will determine the outcome of the next election. Polls presently are primarily helpful in understanding the various subtexts which drive public opinion (what segments of the population think about particular characteristics or issues); testing what issues in the news create responses in the population and which do not resonate; and who has momentum (and who does not.)
Time to get back to the stuff I get paid to do....
Bloggers are mostly male: Not quite sure that blogging provides the thrill in the extreme sport sort of way, is the modern equivalent of marking your territory, or a forum to express immature opinionated behaviour, but if Margaret Wente says so, it must be true.
Opposition Kudos: So those free mailings you receive from Members of Parliament (not always your own) affectionately known as "10 per centers" have been voted away by the Opposition saving the taxpayers up to $20 million per year. I find it ironic that the arguments against these were essentially that the Conservatives have improved the art of using these as politically effective ammunition much better than their opponents, hence the opponents vote to take away this weapon. Seems to me if you want to improve in the game of warfare, you learn from the opponent and copy their best practices. However, as a taxpayer, I fully agree this had degenerated into a public waste of time and money so kudos to their elimination.
Polls, Schmolls..... Another day, another poll. I would be lying if I said I did not pay attention to the polls but to me the top of line numbers are not that important. The poll question usually is, "If an election were held today...." Fact is, an election is not being held today and even if it were called today, a six week election campaign will follow. In our present political climate, the campaign will determine the outcome of the next election. Polls presently are primarily helpful in understanding the various subtexts which drive public opinion (what segments of the population think about particular characteristics or issues); testing what issues in the news create responses in the population and which do not resonate; and who has momentum (and who does not.)
Time to get back to the stuff I get paid to do....
Wednesday, 17 March, 2010
Conservative Strategy for Social Justice
Last Friday at the Manning Center Conference in Ottawa, I was on a panel with former Cabinet Minister Monte Solberg, Heritage Foundation staffer Jennifer Marshall, and Institute of Marriage and the Family Executive Director Dave Quist talking about a conservative strategy for social justice. The following is my opening statement.
Notes for Remarks – Social Justice Strategy for Conservatives
Manning Center Conference – March 12, 2010
Thank you to the Manning Center for including this important topic on your conference program.
I will focus my remarks this afternoon around three simple propositions:
1. Conservatives really do care about the needs of our neighbours.
2. There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution.
3. Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent.
First then, Conservatives care. This is an important place to start. The conservative brand is usually not associated with social justice issues. This is seen to be the purview of the left and given that public debate around these matters has generally been shaped about government programs dealing with social issues – with the left usually being for them and their expansion and the right opposed – there is a popular perception that Conservatives hard-edged and uncaring.
Canadians generally like to think of themselves as caring. And on the face of it, there is evidence to back up this claim.
• Eighty-five percent of adults tell surveyors that they donate some money to a charity every year.
• Sixty-one percent of us belong to at least one social group or organization.
• Somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of us volunteer with many young people reportedly volunteering more than their grandparents.
In our study A Canadian Culture of Generosity based on an analysis of Statistics Canada data, Cardus has pointed out that in reality, less than 30% of Canadians account for 85% of total hours volunteered; 78% of total dollars donated; and 71% of all civic participation. We dig a little further and discover that there is a primary civic core of about 6% of the population who are doing about five times their proportionate share; a secondary group of 23% of the population that does about double their share, and the remaining 71% of the population who carry less than one-third of their proportionate share. What I find most telling is the fact that the median charitable receipt claim in 2007 for a taxpayer earning $100,000 was $217.
What’s the point of these numbers? The Canadian self-identity and rhetoric about caring does not totally match our individual behavior. Truth be told, insofar as caring is measured by charitable giving, volunteering, and belonging to organizations, some Canadians care.
Now Stats Canada data obviously cannot be sorted with political or ideological leanings as a category but when we did do further research on what distinguishes this group, we were surprised that the key factors were not the sort of demographic or life-cycle characteristics which will “automatically” take care of replenishing themselves. Rather, to quote the sociologists, it is “certain habits of the heart that incline them to the common good. Members of the civic core have an “otherness” syndrome that causes them to do what they do out of deep convictions. They share a set of beliefs and a worldview that stresses responsibility, connectedness and cultural renewal. They are committed to improving their communities and culture through exercising and promoting personal and corporate responsibility. These citizens are often (but not always) older, religious, and well educated.”
I would suggest to you that this group of Canadians – that civic core composing the six per cent of Canadians who are doing five times their proportionate share and the 23% doing double their share – are broadly speaking conservative or conservative accessible voters. Yes, I think it safe to assert and I would be quite prepared to defend the proposition, Conservatives care.
Which sets up my second proposition, There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution. Two points here.
First, in politics if you want to engage people, you need to connect to their passions. I would suggest that conservatives have ignored an opportunity to realize their full political potential because they are often not seen to be engaged in these issues. We can take this on both a principled and pragmatic level. There are voters who are engaged every day in their personal lives in helping address the needs and challenges of their neighbours around them, who when they hear a platform defined only in economic terms, fail to resonate. Fully committed to individual dignity and responsibility, they see first-hand the failure of existing programs and solutions but the language of cuts without a credible alternative is not compelling. It is quite right to point out the failures of welfare state solutions but if that is heard as “washing our hands” of the challenges, we lose credibility. These voters are not looking for new government programs – they are busy on the front lines and realize they can do a better job than do bureaucrats at working on these challenging issues. But they are looking for a genuine expression of caring and a framework within which these real social needs are addressed. It is fair to say the conservative movement has not always provided this.
The second point I want to make regards the increasing urgency of this challenge. As I noted in a National Post column last week – and if you want the numbers, check there -- Demographics, immigration and urbanization will combine to put upward pressure on what is expected from charitable organizations. It does not take a degree in economics to understand the impact of decreasing supply and increasing demand. But given that the subject involves social services, the price that will be paid is more than a future increased tax bill.
Which really leads me to my third and primary proposition: Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent. Talking about a Conservative strategy for social justice does not mean advocating that more public resources be directed to this sector.
Frankly, there are others --and I would argue more meaningful ways -- to begin addressing this. Let me quickly cite three tangible examples.
Targeted tax cuts. Over the past few months, Cardus has been leading a campaign to increase the charitable tax credit from 29 to 42%. Our argument is straightforward. Most Canadians are not doing their proportionate share and in fact, are civic slackers when it comes to keeping alive the vital non-governmental civil society institutions that are so much a part of our social safety net. The effect of increasing the charitable tax credit would be to provide these institutions with further means to raise additional resources to address these growing needs, lowering the demand on government. It would provide the tools to individual taxpayers to support charities that can demonstrate the delivery of value for the dollars raised and would allow a certain marketplace of competition and choice to operate at work.
Second, a new type of hybrid corporation that crosses the profit and for-profit worlds. Presently we have for profit and not-for-profit corporations and I can say – involved with and sitting as I do on various charitable boards – the regulatory environment for charities to raise capital or engage in profit-making business in the context of delivering their charitable objects is complex and challenging. Here is not the place to get into technical detail – just to point out that recognizing that the not-for-profit and the for-profit world do not need to have the sharp dividing line between them that our present legal systems require. The status quo of delivery is not sustainable given the upcoming demographic shift and encouraging the innovation that comes with the market realities can help find solutions that fiddling with government programs are not likely to discover.
This leads to a third component of government action, which both of my previous two examples contribute to, but I want to make the argument more generally. Government needs to invest in the social infrastructure that can provide the means for the social challenges facing Canadians to be addressed. Let me illustrate – and with this I will conclude – with the commendable example of the Canadian response to the January catastrophe in Haiti. Within hours of the tragedy, Canada’s recently purchased CF-17 heavy lift aircraft were airborne carrying two helicopters with ground crew and equipment. This stood in stark contrast to Canada’s response to the Indonesian tsunami in 2004. Canada’s military transport capacity had not yet been updated and it took several days before the Canadian Forces could lease cargo space from a civilian charter company in order to get aid to where it was needed. The government worked with various charities and humanitarian organizations and Canadians responded with generosity.
The point of this illustration is that to make all of this possible, there was an investment in infrastructure. Conservatives understand when it comes to economic policy that our infrastructure in transportation, energy, and taxation policies and frameworks are a necessary part of the market functioning well. Government has a task and conservatives embrace it diligently, recognizing that this task done well will allow individuals and businesses to prosper in the market. I would like to contend this afternoon that Conservatives need to apply a similar devotion to understanding and implementing the necessary infrastructure for delivering social services well. That too will allow the generosity of Canadians to come to full and vibrant expression and go a long way to advancing social justice in Canada.
Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.
Notes for Remarks – Social Justice Strategy for Conservatives
Manning Center Conference – March 12, 2010
Thank you to the Manning Center for including this important topic on your conference program.
I will focus my remarks this afternoon around three simple propositions:
1. Conservatives really do care about the needs of our neighbours.
2. There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution.
3. Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent.
First then, Conservatives care. This is an important place to start. The conservative brand is usually not associated with social justice issues. This is seen to be the purview of the left and given that public debate around these matters has generally been shaped about government programs dealing with social issues – with the left usually being for them and their expansion and the right opposed – there is a popular perception that Conservatives hard-edged and uncaring.
Canadians generally like to think of themselves as caring. And on the face of it, there is evidence to back up this claim.
• Eighty-five percent of adults tell surveyors that they donate some money to a charity every year.
• Sixty-one percent of us belong to at least one social group or organization.
• Somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of us volunteer with many young people reportedly volunteering more than their grandparents.
In our study A Canadian Culture of Generosity based on an analysis of Statistics Canada data, Cardus has pointed out that in reality, less than 30% of Canadians account for 85% of total hours volunteered; 78% of total dollars donated; and 71% of all civic participation. We dig a little further and discover that there is a primary civic core of about 6% of the population who are doing about five times their proportionate share; a secondary group of 23% of the population that does about double their share, and the remaining 71% of the population who carry less than one-third of their proportionate share. What I find most telling is the fact that the median charitable receipt claim in 2007 for a taxpayer earning $100,000 was $217.
What’s the point of these numbers? The Canadian self-identity and rhetoric about caring does not totally match our individual behavior. Truth be told, insofar as caring is measured by charitable giving, volunteering, and belonging to organizations, some Canadians care.
Now Stats Canada data obviously cannot be sorted with political or ideological leanings as a category but when we did do further research on what distinguishes this group, we were surprised that the key factors were not the sort of demographic or life-cycle characteristics which will “automatically” take care of replenishing themselves. Rather, to quote the sociologists, it is “certain habits of the heart that incline them to the common good. Members of the civic core have an “otherness” syndrome that causes them to do what they do out of deep convictions. They share a set of beliefs and a worldview that stresses responsibility, connectedness and cultural renewal. They are committed to improving their communities and culture through exercising and promoting personal and corporate responsibility. These citizens are often (but not always) older, religious, and well educated.”
I would suggest to you that this group of Canadians – that civic core composing the six per cent of Canadians who are doing five times their proportionate share and the 23% doing double their share – are broadly speaking conservative or conservative accessible voters. Yes, I think it safe to assert and I would be quite prepared to defend the proposition, Conservatives care.
Which sets up my second proposition, There are political dimensions that need to be considered in the solution. Two points here.
First, in politics if you want to engage people, you need to connect to their passions. I would suggest that conservatives have ignored an opportunity to realize their full political potential because they are often not seen to be engaged in these issues. We can take this on both a principled and pragmatic level. There are voters who are engaged every day in their personal lives in helping address the needs and challenges of their neighbours around them, who when they hear a platform defined only in economic terms, fail to resonate. Fully committed to individual dignity and responsibility, they see first-hand the failure of existing programs and solutions but the language of cuts without a credible alternative is not compelling. It is quite right to point out the failures of welfare state solutions but if that is heard as “washing our hands” of the challenges, we lose credibility. These voters are not looking for new government programs – they are busy on the front lines and realize they can do a better job than do bureaucrats at working on these challenging issues. But they are looking for a genuine expression of caring and a framework within which these real social needs are addressed. It is fair to say the conservative movement has not always provided this.
The second point I want to make regards the increasing urgency of this challenge. As I noted in a National Post column last week – and if you want the numbers, check there -- Demographics, immigration and urbanization will combine to put upward pressure on what is expected from charitable organizations. It does not take a degree in economics to understand the impact of decreasing supply and increasing demand. But given that the subject involves social services, the price that will be paid is more than a future increased tax bill.
Which really leads me to my third and primary proposition: Government involvement in these matters should not be measured by the amount of public money spent. Talking about a Conservative strategy for social justice does not mean advocating that more public resources be directed to this sector.
Frankly, there are others --and I would argue more meaningful ways -- to begin addressing this. Let me quickly cite three tangible examples.
Targeted tax cuts. Over the past few months, Cardus has been leading a campaign to increase the charitable tax credit from 29 to 42%. Our argument is straightforward. Most Canadians are not doing their proportionate share and in fact, are civic slackers when it comes to keeping alive the vital non-governmental civil society institutions that are so much a part of our social safety net. The effect of increasing the charitable tax credit would be to provide these institutions with further means to raise additional resources to address these growing needs, lowering the demand on government. It would provide the tools to individual taxpayers to support charities that can demonstrate the delivery of value for the dollars raised and would allow a certain marketplace of competition and choice to operate at work.
Second, a new type of hybrid corporation that crosses the profit and for-profit worlds. Presently we have for profit and not-for-profit corporations and I can say – involved with and sitting as I do on various charitable boards – the regulatory environment for charities to raise capital or engage in profit-making business in the context of delivering their charitable objects is complex and challenging. Here is not the place to get into technical detail – just to point out that recognizing that the not-for-profit and the for-profit world do not need to have the sharp dividing line between them that our present legal systems require. The status quo of delivery is not sustainable given the upcoming demographic shift and encouraging the innovation that comes with the market realities can help find solutions that fiddling with government programs are not likely to discover.
This leads to a third component of government action, which both of my previous two examples contribute to, but I want to make the argument more generally. Government needs to invest in the social infrastructure that can provide the means for the social challenges facing Canadians to be addressed. Let me illustrate – and with this I will conclude – with the commendable example of the Canadian response to the January catastrophe in Haiti. Within hours of the tragedy, Canada’s recently purchased CF-17 heavy lift aircraft were airborne carrying two helicopters with ground crew and equipment. This stood in stark contrast to Canada’s response to the Indonesian tsunami in 2004. Canada’s military transport capacity had not yet been updated and it took several days before the Canadian Forces could lease cargo space from a civilian charter company in order to get aid to where it was needed. The government worked with various charities and humanitarian organizations and Canadians responded with generosity.
The point of this illustration is that to make all of this possible, there was an investment in infrastructure. Conservatives understand when it comes to economic policy that our infrastructure in transportation, energy, and taxation policies and frameworks are a necessary part of the market functioning well. Government has a task and conservatives embrace it diligently, recognizing that this task done well will allow individuals and businesses to prosper in the market. I would like to contend this afternoon that Conservatives need to apply a similar devotion to understanding and implementing the necessary infrastructure for delivering social services well. That too will allow the generosity of Canadians to come to full and vibrant expression and go a long way to advancing social justice in Canada.
Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.
Tuesday, 16 March, 2010
Grace on Display
Catching up on the news that happened while I was on the road, I just read the Toronto Star account of Heather Pham, the widow of slain OPP constable Vu Pham, speaking at her husband's funeral.
Grace is more clearly evident when it is on display than it usually is when it is talked about.
“As hard as it is, I believe forgiveness is the only way to release us from the pain and the anger,” Heather Pham said on Friday at the funeral of her husband, Vu Pham, 37, who was shot Monday after pulling over a truck on a rural road. “God has freely offered us forgiveness,” she said at the packed sports arena where her husband coached their three sons in hockey. “To the best of my human ability, with God’s help, I will offer it as well. My hope and my prayer is that all of you will do the same. I know it’s what Vu would have wanted.”
Grace is more clearly evident when it is on display than it usually is when it is talked about.
Monday, 15 March, 2010
Solemn Promises
Yesterday was a significant day in my life: for the fifth time I stood before the congregation in a worship service to answer the question "do you feel lawfully called of God's church, and consequently of God Himself' to the office of elder and promising to "agreeably to said doctrine, according to (my) ability, to discharge (the office of elder)?"
In the Free Reformed churches, elders have the responsibility, together with the minister and deacons who collectively form the consistory, to provide leadership to the church. Elders are specifically tasked with three things: to take oversight of the church (which in our practice, includes an annual "home visit" with every household of the congregation in which we worship together but also discuss the spiritual lives and challenges of the members, with a view to providing spiritual counsel and encouragement); to ensure that all things in the church are done "decently and in good order" (I Corinthians 14:40); and to ensure that the preaching and teaching of the church remains doctrinally sound. (These three are taken from the Form for Ordination of Elders and Deacons which dates to the Synod of the Hague in 1586, a translation of which was read at yesterday's service.)
Serving in the office of elder is not unfamiliar to me and the duties - while sometimes stressful and time-consuming - are also filled with their own rewards. Yet I found myself this weekend reflecting on the solemnity of the moment of standing in a worship service, before the congregation of God's people and God himself, and making a promise. This was actually the eighth time I have done so in my life: In 1984 I confessed my faith publicly in the church in which I was baptised; in 1989, I married my bride in the church in which she had been baptised; and nineteen months later we stood together as parents in that same church for the baptism of our only son.
It was about a decade later that I was first ordained as an elder in the Brantford Free Reformed Church. That service was led by Rev. C. Pronk, a long-time pastor and mentor, who preached from Isaiah 62:6-8 and emphasized the diligence, perseverance, and accountability required of office-bearers. Shortly after we moved to Calgary in 2004, I was installed as an elder of the Monarch FRC to serve the church plant in Calgary. My friend since our university days, Pastor Jack Schoeman, used I Timothy 4:12 as he installed myself and Harold Slingerland as the first elders to serve this church plant, a passage which spoke both the privilege and authority of the office, but also the calling to serve as humble examples to the congregation. Because of the circumstance in the church plant, it was thought wisest that the original terms for the elders be one year, but a year later the congregation re-elected us so we were re-installed in our offices. That service was based on Ephesians 4:11-13 in which the emphasis was on the responsibility of elders to cultivate the gifts of all members in the church and contribute to the unity of the church were primary themes.
In September 2007 the Calgary FRC was instituted (as I blogged on in detail at the time). The tender support and glorious promises which Jesus promises to His church were highlighted. In our attempt to introduce some rotation in the membership of the consistory, the terms were staggered with mine ending in the spring of 2009. Yesterday I was reinstalled by our new Pastor Hans Overduin and he preached on Philippians 4:5: " Let all things be done in moderation; the Lord is at hand." Speaking of the "humble bigheartedness" enjoined in the text to all believers, but particularly office-bearers, he emphasized the "how" and attitude with which we ought to approach our work. In his sermon, he included a familiar but moving story of the testimony of Corrie Ten Boom:
Reflecting on the range of texts and charges given in the solemn setting of a worship service is personal journey, but taken together, I think these reflect wise counsel for going forward. Reducing the theme of each sermon to a short sentence: Persevere with diligence, realizing our accountability. Do not despise the office's authority, but use it with a humble confidence. Focus not on yourself but in cultivating the gifts in others. Have confidence based on the person and promise of He who is the church's bridegroom. Carry out your task with a humble big-heartedness, like the donkey on Palm Sunday, by your conduct making the gospel winsome and attractive.
I have made but also received solemn promises which provide reason to go forward in confidence, realizing that the work is not mine but God's. May He richly bless it.
In the Free Reformed churches, elders have the responsibility, together with the minister and deacons who collectively form the consistory, to provide leadership to the church. Elders are specifically tasked with three things: to take oversight of the church (which in our practice, includes an annual "home visit" with every household of the congregation in which we worship together but also discuss the spiritual lives and challenges of the members, with a view to providing spiritual counsel and encouragement); to ensure that all things in the church are done "decently and in good order" (I Corinthians 14:40); and to ensure that the preaching and teaching of the church remains doctrinally sound. (These three are taken from the Form for Ordination of Elders and Deacons which dates to the Synod of the Hague in 1586, a translation of which was read at yesterday's service.)
Serving in the office of elder is not unfamiliar to me and the duties - while sometimes stressful and time-consuming - are also filled with their own rewards. Yet I found myself this weekend reflecting on the solemnity of the moment of standing in a worship service, before the congregation of God's people and God himself, and making a promise. This was actually the eighth time I have done so in my life: In 1984 I confessed my faith publicly in the church in which I was baptised; in 1989, I married my bride in the church in which she had been baptised; and nineteen months later we stood together as parents in that same church for the baptism of our only son.
It was about a decade later that I was first ordained as an elder in the Brantford Free Reformed Church. That service was led by Rev. C. Pronk, a long-time pastor and mentor, who preached from Isaiah 62:6-8 and emphasized the diligence, perseverance, and accountability required of office-bearers. Shortly after we moved to Calgary in 2004, I was installed as an elder of the Monarch FRC to serve the church plant in Calgary. My friend since our university days, Pastor Jack Schoeman, used I Timothy 4:12 as he installed myself and Harold Slingerland as the first elders to serve this church plant, a passage which spoke both the privilege and authority of the office, but also the calling to serve as humble examples to the congregation. Because of the circumstance in the church plant, it was thought wisest that the original terms for the elders be one year, but a year later the congregation re-elected us so we were re-installed in our offices. That service was based on Ephesians 4:11-13 in which the emphasis was on the responsibility of elders to cultivate the gifts of all members in the church and contribute to the unity of the church were primary themes.
In September 2007 the Calgary FRC was instituted (as I blogged on in detail at the time). The tender support and glorious promises which Jesus promises to His church were highlighted. In our attempt to introduce some rotation in the membership of the consistory, the terms were staggered with mine ending in the spring of 2009. Yesterday I was reinstalled by our new Pastor Hans Overduin and he preached on Philippians 4:5: " Let all things be done in moderation; the Lord is at hand." Speaking of the "humble bigheartedness" enjoined in the text to all believers, but particularly office-bearers, he emphasized the "how" and attitude with which we ought to approach our work. In his sermon, he included a familiar but moving story of the testimony of Corrie Ten Boom:
She was once asked if it was difficult for her to remain humble. She replied:
"When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on the back of a donkey, and everyone was waving palm branches and throwing garments on the road, and singing praises, do you think that for one moment it ever entered the head of the donkey that any of that was for him?” Corrie went on, “If I can be the donkey on which Jesus Christ rides in His glory, I give him all the praise and the honour."
Reflecting on the range of texts and charges given in the solemn setting of a worship service is personal journey, but taken together, I think these reflect wise counsel for going forward. Reducing the theme of each sermon to a short sentence: Persevere with diligence, realizing our accountability. Do not despise the office's authority, but use it with a humble confidence. Focus not on yourself but in cultivating the gifts in others. Have confidence based on the person and promise of He who is the church's bridegroom. Carry out your task with a humble big-heartedness, like the donkey on Palm Sunday, by your conduct making the gospel winsome and attractive.
I have made but also received solemn promises which provide reason to go forward in confidence, realizing that the work is not mine but God's. May He richly bless it.
Wednesday, 10 March, 2010
Canada Reborn
Andrew Coyne has an interesting column in the Olympic print edition of Macleans (can't find a link on-line)in which he suggests that the aspirational aims of Own the Podium have always been part of the Canadian psyche, but for the most of the past century, "it went underground."
The entire article is worth a read, but I particularly resonated with Coyne's closing.
Well said. And as one of my colleagues pointed out in forwarding this article to me, another way of describing what Michael Van Pelt and I tried to point out in suggesting the replacement of the pan-Canadian consensus with something new.
"Go back to the first half of the last century, before the nationalists started remaking us in their own image, and you see a different Canada: the Canada of Laurier and Leacock, when it was not just a goal, but an assumption, that this country, two steps out of the woods though it was, would be the next great power. By the end of the 20th century, the "century of Canada," we would have 100 million people. World leaders? Top of the medals? Of course. This is what we were supposed to be."
The entire article is worth a read, but I particularly resonated with Coyne's closing.
"For me, this Olympics, and its effect on our sense of self is summed up in two of our first gold medal winners. Alexandre Bilodeau and Jon Montgomery: the ego and the id of our national psyche. Bilodeau with his manifest decency and humility, whose first thought on winning was of his disabled brother, is who we would like to be. Montgomery, the muscle-flexing, beer-swilling skeleton dare-devil, who only took up the sport as a way to get to the Olympics, is who we are.
Or maybe there's no contradiction between the two. Maybe what we have learned is that we can hold fast to those traditional Canadian virtues of compassion, generosity and fairness, and still be aggressive, ambitions, and competitive as all get out. If that offends a few visiting British sportswriters, that is just a chance we are going to have to take.
Well said. And as one of my colleagues pointed out in forwarding this article to me, another way of describing what Michael Van Pelt and I tried to point out in suggesting the replacement of the pan-Canadian consensus with something new.
Tuesday, 9 March, 2010
Sometimes the Persecuted are also the Persecutors
My last post prompted a few private email comments in addition to the response on the Comment space. I was trying to make two points in the last post: (a) there is much religious persecution that goes on in the world to which the western media, but also the western church, is mostly indifferent; and (b) the circumstances surrounding this persecution is often more complex than meets the eye, tied up in political, ethnic, and economic challenges as it often is.
Let me pass along some insights from someone far more informed on this matter. It complicates matters but I do think it rightly provides insight that is often overlooked in these discussions.
It is thought-provoking and a bit unnerving to focus on the fact that the persecuted are sometimes also persecutors. This is not (as I think my friend rightly acknowledges) meant to consider all persecution has moral equivalence. Simplistic anti-religious rhetoric does that, with the mistaken syllogism that to persecute is bad, people persecute in the name of religion, and therefore religion is by definition bad.
But in countering such mistaken logic, those of us who are people of faith, do need to acknowledge that religious persecution is not all one-sided. As someone who confesses Christ, I need to acknowledge that those who make a similar confession to mine are sometimes guilty of similar horrific crimes. Sadly, knowing something of the depravity of my own heart, I am less surprised by this than I would like to admit. I know from my own theological categories that the line between good and evil does not run between ethnic groups, nor religious groups, but right through the human heart including mine. That is why the Christian gospel which speaks of being born again, having a new heart, provides a hope and answer to these challenges that other religions do not. I do not rest my hope in my own good works or in the behaviour of those confess the same faith as I do. It is only the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ that offers salvation. When that salvation is applied in a believer's heart by faith, one ought to expect a change of behaviour, but we recognize that the "old man" still has a place in that heart and exercises his influence until we die. Yes, good people do bad things. (And sometimes we should question whether they in fact are good people, when they live totally inconsistently with their profession, but that is a complexity we can tackle another day.)
Not easy issues but ones that we are better honestly addressing than entering into public discourse pretending that all the good rests only on one side of the equation. Still, the pictures are horrific and ought to prompt us to a greater sensitivity and prayer regarding these issues.
Let me pass along some insights from someone far more informed on this matter. It complicates matters but I do think it rightly provides insight that is often overlooked in these discussions.
When Christians are persecuted in a place like Nigeria, there is much (understandable) outrage in the West, particularly among Christians. What doesn't seem to get quite equal playing time is the fact that Muslims in Nigeria are also persecuted by Christians there. The most recent, horrible attacks in the Jos area were in retaliation for equally horrible attacks on Muslims by Christians.
We often talk about "the persecuted church" but one disturbing realization is that virtually all religions persecute other religions. The Hindu majority in India persecutes the Muslim minority, which in turn persecutes the even smaller Christian minority. Orthodox Christians in eastern Europe vigorously persecute Protestants. The Jewish state discriminates against non-Jews (though, to be fair, Christians and Muslims in Israel have more rights than they would almost anywhere else in the Middle East; this whole "Israel Apartheid Week" is disgusting and very thinly-veiled anti-Semitism.) Iran's Muslim government persecutes not only Christians, but also Ba'hai, Zoroastrian, and others. Even Buddhists can get nasty sometimes, in places such as Thailand, where they fear missionary efforts of other religions. And where there is no official religion--like China--the atheists persecute the Christians and Muslims.
Shia Muslims persecute Sunni Muslims (Iraq) and both persecute Ahmadi Muslims. The list goes on and on. I think at some point we will be able to argue that atheists in Western countries discriminate against, if not persecute, people of any religion.
My point: the problem here is the misinterpretation of religion (any religion) to persecute others. Or, perhaps more accurately, it's the use of religion as a cover for other motives, as you recognize in your blog. I think Northern Ireland's troubles were a good example of this. I worry a bit, though, that when we talk about the persecuted church, we focus too narrowly on a part of the problem. Of course, we'd rather not talk about the persecuting church.
To be clear, I don't think it's a situation where all religions persecute equally. Muslims in "Christian" countries of the West have more rights than they do in Muslim lands. There are far less instances of Christians persecuting anybody than there are of Muslims doing so. But there are also good examples--like Indonesia--of Muslim countries that attempt to protect Christians.
I do wonder about how each religion's theology affects their tendency to persecute. I think that Christianity has largely developed to the point that converts are expected to come the "soft" way--that is, Christians hope to change the hearts of non-Christians by persuasion. While Christianity focuses on the heart, Islam seems to focus on outward manifestations (clothing, etc.) and is quite content to make people Muslim by changing their actions and appearance, with no regard to their heart. This understandably leads to coercion and violence. In that regard, I wonder if much modern Islam is not like medieval Christianity, where the focus too was on the outside rather than the inside.
It is thought-provoking and a bit unnerving to focus on the fact that the persecuted are sometimes also persecutors. This is not (as I think my friend rightly acknowledges) meant to consider all persecution has moral equivalence. Simplistic anti-religious rhetoric does that, with the mistaken syllogism that to persecute is bad, people persecute in the name of religion, and therefore religion is by definition bad.
But in countering such mistaken logic, those of us who are people of faith, do need to acknowledge that religious persecution is not all one-sided. As someone who confesses Christ, I need to acknowledge that those who make a similar confession to mine are sometimes guilty of similar horrific crimes. Sadly, knowing something of the depravity of my own heart, I am less surprised by this than I would like to admit. I know from my own theological categories that the line between good and evil does not run between ethnic groups, nor religious groups, but right through the human heart including mine. That is why the Christian gospel which speaks of being born again, having a new heart, provides a hope and answer to these challenges that other religions do not. I do not rest my hope in my own good works or in the behaviour of those confess the same faith as I do. It is only the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ that offers salvation. When that salvation is applied in a believer's heart by faith, one ought to expect a change of behaviour, but we recognize that the "old man" still has a place in that heart and exercises his influence until we die. Yes, good people do bad things. (And sometimes we should question whether they in fact are good people, when they live totally inconsistently with their profession, but that is a complexity we can tackle another day.)
Not easy issues but ones that we are better honestly addressing than entering into public discourse pretending that all the good rests only on one side of the equation. Still, the pictures are horrific and ought to prompt us to a greater sensitivity and prayer regarding these issues.
Nigerian Bloodshed
The reports out of Nigeria indicating more than 500 Christians from three villages being slaughtered are stomach-churning. Much more of this religious violence occurs than is usually reported in North American media so it was good to see the National Post highlight this with a front page picture this morning (although it is buried on their website.) The Times OnLine stories are a bit more detailed and also contains an analysis piece by the reporter Jonathan Clayton.
The story is obviously a complex one that involves a complex informal power-sharing agreement between southern Christian tribes and Northern Muslims, jealousy about how to fairly divide the benefits that come from the oil that primarily comes from one part of the country, and an illness to a President that has resulted in "drift and dither" rather than leadership and decision-making. All that said, the almost 50-50 split between the Muslim and Christian religions, divided mostly along ethnic lines, is a clear fault line. Reports indicate that the murderous gangs shouted religious slogans and that fellow Muslims were spared, being identified by their ability to respond in religious language.
The issue of religious freedom and persecution is one that does not occupy the mainstream media much. The Hudson Institute has a center for Religious Freedom that does good scholarly work and is doing its part to create a mainstream awareness of what is going on. A quick skim of their pages remind us that it is not only in the villages of Nigeria, but in many countries around the world where men and women are not just discriminated against, but die regularly for their faith.
But neglecting this issue also happens within the church. While most Sundays we do pray for "our persecuted brothers and sisters," I for one must confess that this is as often as much jargon as a passionate and understood conviction. Truth is, I don't know and relatively rarely think about the details under which the persecuted church lives. It's been a few years since I last read a book on the subject -- the one that jumps to mind is Nina Shea's In the Lion's Den which I read a decade or so ago. Today's news is a reminder that it is probably necessary to pick up such a book again and rekindle the passion so that we might pray more earnestly for the persecuted church. It is also a reminder for us never to take the privileges and freedoms we enjoy for granted but to be good stewards of our opportunities.
The story is obviously a complex one that involves a complex informal power-sharing agreement between southern Christian tribes and Northern Muslims, jealousy about how to fairly divide the benefits that come from the oil that primarily comes from one part of the country, and an illness to a President that has resulted in "drift and dither" rather than leadership and decision-making. All that said, the almost 50-50 split between the Muslim and Christian religions, divided mostly along ethnic lines, is a clear fault line. Reports indicate that the murderous gangs shouted religious slogans and that fellow Muslims were spared, being identified by their ability to respond in religious language.
The issue of religious freedom and persecution is one that does not occupy the mainstream media much. The Hudson Institute has a center for Religious Freedom that does good scholarly work and is doing its part to create a mainstream awareness of what is going on. A quick skim of their pages remind us that it is not only in the villages of Nigeria, but in many countries around the world where men and women are not just discriminated against, but die regularly for their faith.
But neglecting this issue also happens within the church. While most Sundays we do pray for "our persecuted brothers and sisters," I for one must confess that this is as often as much jargon as a passionate and understood conviction. Truth is, I don't know and relatively rarely think about the details under which the persecuted church lives. It's been a few years since I last read a book on the subject -- the one that jumps to mind is Nina Shea's In the Lion's Den which I read a decade or so ago. Today's news is a reminder that it is probably necessary to pick up such a book again and rekindle the passion so that we might pray more earnestly for the persecuted church. It is also a reminder for us never to take the privileges and freedoms we enjoy for granted but to be good stewards of our opportunities.
Monday, 8 March, 2010
Worm Theology
Yesterday morning's sermon had as its text Psalm 22:6: "I am a worm, and not a man." Pastor Overduin exegeted this "amazing gospel statement" under three points: It is so astonishing, so solemn, and so glorious.
Astonishing : While David as the author of the Psalm was seemingly forsaken by God, the Psalm is a Messianic Psalm (the most quoted of such in the NT) and speaks to Christ actually being forsaken. The cross points us to God forsaken of God, the Son of God being as a worm and no man. "The history of the cross is the most abnormal event in the history of the world. When have you last spoke in amazement of Jesus Christ and Him crucified?"
Solemn: The necessity of the cross directs us to the "wormly unworthiness" that sinful humanity is before God. "Worm talk is not very popular these days. Worm theology, however, is not negative, but positive." How often does our own flippancy about sin end up treating Christ and His cross as a worm -- unnoticed and trampled upon?
Glorious: Psalm 22 changes tone from a sob to an adoration. It is similar to the gospel of Isaiah 41.14: "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel: I will help thee says the Lord and thy redeemer, the Holy one of Israel." The great "I am's" spoken by Jesus and recorded in the gospel of John are made possible because of the "I am" of Psalm 22. "He raises up the poor out of the dust, and lifts the needy out of the dunghill; That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people." (Psalm 113:7-8).
Astonishing : While David as the author of the Psalm was seemingly forsaken by God, the Psalm is a Messianic Psalm (the most quoted of such in the NT) and speaks to Christ actually being forsaken. The cross points us to God forsaken of God, the Son of God being as a worm and no man. "The history of the cross is the most abnormal event in the history of the world. When have you last spoke in amazement of Jesus Christ and Him crucified?"
Solemn: The necessity of the cross directs us to the "wormly unworthiness" that sinful humanity is before God. "Worm talk is not very popular these days. Worm theology, however, is not negative, but positive." How often does our own flippancy about sin end up treating Christ and His cross as a worm -- unnoticed and trampled upon?
Glorious: Psalm 22 changes tone from a sob to an adoration. It is similar to the gospel of Isaiah 41.14: "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel: I will help thee says the Lord and thy redeemer, the Holy one of Israel." The great "I am's" spoken by Jesus and recorded in the gospel of John are made possible because of the "I am" of Psalm 22. "He raises up the poor out of the dust, and lifts the needy out of the dunghill; That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people." (Psalm 113:7-8).
Thursday, 4 March, 2010
Thinktank bustle on Budget Day
Spent the day in Ottawa where among other things, I participated in the budget lock-up where along with a few hundred other industry association reps and think-tankers, we parsed the budget documents to have our thoughts ready for public debate when the Minister of Finance stood in his place at 4 p.m. in the House of Commons. I will confess to disappointment in that the 29to42 initiative that Cardus had championed in recent months was not included in the budget. The reasons provided by senior government officials related to timing and the single-minded focus in this budget on dealing with the deficit.
Putting together an "instant analysis" with the pressure of the clock is a challenging but fun exercise every year. The process is quite straight-forward. In advance, helped by my fellow Cardus staffers, we try and anticipate what might come in the budget and prepare a basic template. This afternoon, President Michael VanPelt and myself were in the lock-up and had 90 minutes to read the 300+ pages of text, evaluate what we thought of it, and draft the analysis and media release. When the Minister of Finance stands in his place, the doors open and we are allowed to communicate with the outside world. Our drafts are then sent to the rest of the team in the office, who do some word-smithing, provide a second (and third and fourth) set of eyes to ensure our analysis seems reasonable, and forward an edited draft to my blackberry for sign-off. A quick telephone conversation ensues and this afternoon, the final version was posted at 5:02 p.m. and sent via email to thousands by 5:18 p.m.. It's a tribute to teamwork that we are able to pull this off every year but I think forms and important contribution to the public dialogue. It was interesting to attend a post-budget reception this evening and engage in several conversations where our budget analysis had been noted.
For those who are not on Cardus' distribution list, the entire analysis can be found on the website here. I will paste the media release for those who prefer the short version. Now its off to bed and time to catch an early morning flight as tomorrow is an important Redeemer board meeting.
Putting together an "instant analysis" with the pressure of the clock is a challenging but fun exercise every year. The process is quite straight-forward. In advance, helped by my fellow Cardus staffers, we try and anticipate what might come in the budget and prepare a basic template. This afternoon, President Michael VanPelt and myself were in the lock-up and had 90 minutes to read the 300+ pages of text, evaluate what we thought of it, and draft the analysis and media release. When the Minister of Finance stands in his place, the doors open and we are allowed to communicate with the outside world. Our drafts are then sent to the rest of the team in the office, who do some word-smithing, provide a second (and third and fourth) set of eyes to ensure our analysis seems reasonable, and forward an edited draft to my blackberry for sign-off. A quick telephone conversation ensues and this afternoon, the final version was posted at 5:02 p.m. and sent via email to thousands by 5:18 p.m.. It's a tribute to teamwork that we are able to pull this off every year but I think forms and important contribution to the public dialogue. It was interesting to attend a post-budget reception this evening and engage in several conversations where our budget analysis had been noted.
For those who are not on Cardus' distribution list, the entire analysis can be found on the website here. I will paste the media release for those who prefer the short version. Now its off to bed and time to catch an early morning flight as tomorrow is an important Redeemer board meeting.
Cardus' Analysis of 2010 Canadian Federal Budget: Long-Term Talk Masks Short-Term Thinking
March 4, 2010
OTTAWA, March 4, 2010—Ray Pennings, Director of Research for Cardus, expressed concern that although today's federal budget rightly focuses on returning the books from deficit to surplus, it pays too little attention to imminent deficits in elder care, charitable service and broad social architecture.
"It's a good budget, but it's not visionary," said Pennings. "Canada will begin facing down critical problems in the coming decades that need bold fiscal leadership, and by that standard, today's budget is focused too much on short-term physical stimulus, and not enough on helping institutions outside of government build capacity for providing critical services over the long term."
Cardus released its analysis of the federal budget asking three core questions:
1. "Has the Economic Action Plan provided value for money?" In general, the Action Plan has enabled valuable updating of our physical, transportation and educational infrastructure that will reap positive rewards in the future. It has done so without any indications of significant fiscal mismanagement-no small achievement for a quickly-executed program of this magnitude.
2. "Will the plan to rebalance the books still pay to maintain our social and physical infrastructure?" The budget fails in this regard. While it acknowledges the impact of demographic challenges as it affects its own transfers to provinces, it ignores the impact this same trend will have on social services, labour supply, elder care and other spheres. The failure to include any significant measures encouraging the institutions of civil society to build capacity to address these needs is a significant mistake that will exacerbate long term problems.
3. "Are the plans for economic growth credibly taking into account the known demographic changes which are facing our country?" For the most part, this government is relying on tinkering with the status quo to achieve economic growth. While this is certainly preferred to a strategy of government trying to "pick winners and losers," it does not address the significant future challenge of a shortage of workers and taxpayers that cannot simply be solved by markets.
Cardus' analysis not only calls into question some of the government's long-term projections, but also urges greater attention on the inevitable economic and social impacts of the demographic crisis.
"The short-term strategy is a prudent check on stimulus," concluded Pennings, "but dealing with Canada's long-term economic and social challenges have been left for another day."
Wednesday, 3 March, 2010
Throne Speech Punditry
Spent this afternoon watching the throne speech and in coordination with my Cardus colleagues, we have put together a quick analysis. It appears on the Cardusafterhours blog but I am cross posting it here for your convenience. Now time to change gears from the platitudes of a throne speech to the technical detail of a budget.
The bulk of Cardus staff just finished gathering around the big screen watching this year’s Speech from the Throne. Throne speeches are usually a collection of vauge sentiments intended to signal direction rather than project specific policy directions. Except for policy junkies they usually don’t merit more than a passing glance.
That said, we don’t want to get carried away with the 6000 words or so delivered by the Governor General this afternoon. But there are a few signals we find encouraging:
First, it builds on who we are rather than what governments should do. It projects positive attributes for the country as a whole, that extend beyond the mere work of politics. On page seventeen it lists:
we are a country whose story is still being written
we are a country founded on democracy
we are a bilingual country
we are a country with an aboriginal heritage
we are a country of immigrants
we are a country of refuge
we are a northern country
we are a country of unparalleled natural beuaty
we are a country that stands for what is right in the world
We could dissect this list at length, but what is remarkable is the substantive difference in tone compared to the pan-Canadian consensus that would have defined the country over the last thirty years.
Second, investment in Canada is increasingly signalled. Russ Kuykendall made important observations in his review of the Red Wilson report several years ago. In this area he signalled the role of non-governmental institutions that needs to and will be acknowledged in the economic realm and how these shape our social architecture. These are critical forces shaping our economy and, in practical terms, will effect such rates as cellular and internet.
Third, there is a robust acknowledgement of the importance of the charitable sector. There are promises about the reduction of red tape and the introduction of a Prime Minister’s award for volunteerism, all positive signals regarding issues Cardus raised in A Canadian Culture of Generosity. These might be lip service or they might foreshadow something more substantive in tomorrow’s budget addressing the tax structure relating to charities, providing this sector with the tools to increase its capacity. Here’s to hoping for the latter.
The bulk of Cardus staff just finished gathering around the big screen watching this year’s Speech from the Throne. Throne speeches are usually a collection of vauge sentiments intended to signal direction rather than project specific policy directions. Except for policy junkies they usually don’t merit more than a passing glance.
That said, we don’t want to get carried away with the 6000 words or so delivered by the Governor General this afternoon. But there are a few signals we find encouraging:
First, it builds on who we are rather than what governments should do. It projects positive attributes for the country as a whole, that extend beyond the mere work of politics. On page seventeen it lists:
we are a country whose story is still being written
we are a country founded on democracy
we are a bilingual country
we are a country with an aboriginal heritage
we are a country of immigrants
we are a country of refuge
we are a northern country
we are a country of unparalleled natural beuaty
we are a country that stands for what is right in the world
We could dissect this list at length, but what is remarkable is the substantive difference in tone compared to the pan-Canadian consensus that would have defined the country over the last thirty years.
Second, investment in Canada is increasingly signalled. Russ Kuykendall made important observations in his review of the Red Wilson report several years ago. In this area he signalled the role of non-governmental institutions that needs to and will be acknowledged in the economic realm and how these shape our social architecture. These are critical forces shaping our economy and, in practical terms, will effect such rates as cellular and internet.
Third, there is a robust acknowledgement of the importance of the charitable sector. There are promises about the reduction of red tape and the introduction of a Prime Minister’s award for volunteerism, all positive signals regarding issues Cardus raised in A Canadian Culture of Generosity. These might be lip service or they might foreshadow something more substantive in tomorrow’s budget addressing the tax structure relating to charities, providing this sector with the tools to increase its capacity. Here’s to hoping for the latter.
Tuesday, 2 March, 2010
As It Happens
My colleague Michael Van Pelt was interviewed today on CBC's As It Happens. He had a chance to plug 29to42 but interestingly, it was the 2006 essay he and I co-wrote regarding Replacing the Canadian Pan-Canadian Consensus which prompted the producers to contact him. According to the CBC website, that article contained "astute predictions" and therefore they sought Michael's insight on what tomorrow's throne speech might contain.
The interview is available on the CBC website - Part 3 of today's program starting at the 10:35 mark.
The interview is available on the CBC website - Part 3 of today's program starting at the 10:35 mark.
Monday, 1 March, 2010
In Today's National Post....
I have an op-ed regarding the importance of investing in the charitable sector.
Interestingly, on the same op-ed page is an article by Donald Johnson pumping the merits of an alternative proposal to Cardus' which has been plugged in lead-up to this week's budget. Johnson has proposed that private shares and property be eligible for charitable credit as it is in the US. This proposal is not without its merits, although it would benefit primarily larger charities and larger donors, whereas the 29to42 proposal we have been promoting will benefit the larger groups of lower and middle class income earners who invest from their regular income to charities.
With the throne speech and budget scheduled for delivery later this week, the decisions have probably already been made as to which, if any, of the various proposals (there were five major proposals floated over the past few months) will be included in the government's plans. However, the arguments that we have been raising are not the sort that will end with a single measure in a federal budget. They are fundamental to the sort of society we will be over the course of the decade to come. It may be a bit less memorable than Crosby's goal last night, but arguably it will be of greater impact on the sort of Canada we can expect in the next generation.
There are important lessons to be learned from Canada’s prompt and widely commended response to the January catastrophe in Haiti.
Within hours of the tragedy, Canada’s recently purchased CF-17 heavy lift aircraft were airborne carrying two helicopters with ground crew and equipment. This stood in stark contrast to Canada’s response to the Indonesian tsunami in 2004. Canada’s military transport capacity had not yet been updated and it took several days before the Canadian Forces could lease cargo space from a civilian charter company in order to get aid to where it was needed.
The infrastructure of delivering help to those who need it is not only relevant when it comes to airplanes and responding to disasters. Every day Canadians rely on an extensive foundation provided by the charitable and not-for-profit sector to deliver the sorts of everyday social services that are often taken for granted.
Interestingly, on the same op-ed page is an article by Donald Johnson pumping the merits of an alternative proposal to Cardus' which has been plugged in lead-up to this week's budget. Johnson has proposed that private shares and property be eligible for charitable credit as it is in the US. This proposal is not without its merits, although it would benefit primarily larger charities and larger donors, whereas the 29to42 proposal we have been promoting will benefit the larger groups of lower and middle class income earners who invest from their regular income to charities.
With the throne speech and budget scheduled for delivery later this week, the decisions have probably already been made as to which, if any, of the various proposals (there were five major proposals floated over the past few months) will be included in the government's plans. However, the arguments that we have been raising are not the sort that will end with a single measure in a federal budget. They are fundamental to the sort of society we will be over the course of the decade to come. It may be a bit less memorable than Crosby's goal last night, but arguably it will be of greater impact on the sort of Canada we can expect in the next generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
