Beneath the Surface

Debate with Justin Trotter

2010-11-12T20:51:00.003-07:00

The Munk Debates posted today a webcam debate between myself and Justin Trottier. Click here to watch the debate and, if you think I won, feel free to vote for me.

Makes me Want to Shop at Macy's

2010-11-11T10:25:00.002-07:00

Copied from operphila.org.

On Saturday, October 30, 2010, the Opera Company of Philadelphia kicked off National Opera Week by partnering with Macy’s and John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to produce one of Knight Foundation’s “Random Acts of Culture” on a grand scale in Philadelphia.

With the Opera Company of Philadelphia Chorus as a core, over 600 singers from area choirs, accompanied by the famed Wanamaker Organ – the world’s largest pipe organ – surprised shoppers at the Center City Philadelphia Macy’s with a spontaneous rendition of the Hallelujah chorus from Handel’s Messiah. (Please see below for a full list of participating choruses!)

The performance builds on the success of the Opera Company’s April 2010 performance of a pop-up Brindisi chorus that featured 35 choristers from La traviata at the Reading Terminal Market, and which has received nearly 3 million hits worldwide on YouTube since its posting.

The Opera Company is committed to encouraging the personal practice of singing in fun and accessible ways, and is honored to be performing with the revered Wanamaker Organ. Macy’s is committed to preserving this treasured, historical instrument as one of the many community investments – such as their annual fireworks display, their famed Thanksgiving Day Parade, and the Macy’s Christmas Light Show and Dickens Village in Center City Philadelphia – which are made possible by their support.

This Hallelujah performance is generously funded as one of 1,000 “Random Acts of Culture” that Knight Foundation will make possible over the next three years. The “Random Acts of Culture” program is committed to bringing artists out of the performance halls and into the streets as a reminder of how the classical arts enrich lives.

This “Random Act of Culture” is scheduled to coincide with the launch of National Opera Week, spearheaded by Opera America and the National Endowment for the Arts as a way to celebrate the exciting opera activity in the United States each year by offering accessible, fun, free activities that encourage opera appreciation.

Our most sincere thanks to all of the individuals who joined us in song and in spirit on October 30th – follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr for information on future events!

Calgary City Soul Project Released

2010-10-20T09:22:00.001-06:00

Today Cardus is officially releasing the Phase I part of our Calgary City Soul project - an inventory of the physical worship spaces in the city core. The report can be found on the Cardus website.

Attached is the media release that went out this morning.

Calgary’s Centre City Plan: Disincentive to Diversity?

CALGARY, October 20, 2010—The City of Calgary's Centre City Plan may create an unintended disincentive to diversity, to the distribution of vital social services, and to continuing widely accepted social virtues, according to a preliminary study released today by Cardus.
"The Centre City Plan is an impressive document," said Ray Pennings, Cardus Senior Fellow and Director of Research. "But it has unintentionally failed to provide growth opportunities for one element—institutions of faith—that have been at the heart of cities since the beginning of civilization. It failed, in fact, to even mention them."
Cardus' audit, conducted over the summer, analyzed the physical infrastructure that supports the work of faith communities in the area defined by the Centre City Plan. The audit shows there are 25 spaces devoted to worship—mostly Christian churches and one Buddhist Temple—active within the boundaries defined by the Centre City Plan. That plan is designed to provide room and services for 40,000 additional residents in the civic core in the years ahead. There are no synagogues, mosques, Latter Day Saints, Sikh or Hindu temples currently within the civic core.
The study also shows that those 25 existing institutions, in addition to nurturing people's spiritual needs, provide a comprehensive array of social services that contribute to the culture, physical fitness, language learning, and job search and skills enhancement for new and old Calgarians. These congregations also support immigrant transition, food and clothing banks, addiction recovery groups, work with HIV patients, the homeless and single mothers, as well as temporary housing and social assistance for those in need. These spaces are also used for music concerts, performing arts, marriage counselling and childcare for those who live, work in or visit the downtown core.
"While worship itself has always spoken to people's most deeply held beliefs and helped us define what it means to be a human being, it is clear that even for those who do not share those beliefs, these institutions act as incubators for commonly accepted social virtues," said Pennings. "Capping the diversity and strength of institutions that sustain our spirit within our city's core, while limiting their opportunities for growth to the fringes of our society, at the very least requires a thoughtful conversation regarding the nature of the city Calgarians are building."
With the preliminary audit complete, Pennings said Cardus hopes to launch a more comprehensive study of the impact of institutions of faith on Calgary's culture. Cardus is a think tank and ideas lab for social innovation that builds intellectual capacity, social networks and policy alternatives to sustain a wide range of cultural entrepreneurs involved in the study and renewal of North American social architecture. Its team members are scattered across Canada and the US with permanent staff on site in Hamilton and Calgary.
-30-

Media Contact:
Ray Pennings (403)479-4590
rpennings@cardus.ca

A direct download copy of Calgary City Soul Phase 1: Inventory of Physical Worship Space in Calgary’s City Centre is available at http://www.cardus.ca/files/calgaryworshipspaces/

From Today's Calgary Herald

2010-10-20T05:33:00.001-06:00

Great cities need leadership, resources and spirit For The Calgary Herald October 20, 2010 2:15 By most measures, the city, which has just elected a freshly minted mayor and council is doing well. The Calgary Foundation's 2009 Vital Signs report showed a city becoming a better, safer place to live and the City of Calgary's Centre City Plan is a roadmap for a vibrant core. It has room for the growth of commerce, condos, shopping, arts and entertainment, pubs, restaurants. It satisfies the senses and without question is a fine document -- a dynamic template for a city with great aspirations.

Yet a critical element -- one found in all of the world's great cities -- has been overlooked. The Centre City Plan leaves no room for the growth of faith institutions to serve the 40,000 additional residents expected to fill its core.

What are the consequences of this in terms of brick-and-mortar space as well as program delivery? If city living is intended to meet the wide range of its residents' needs, isn't spiritual nourishment among those? If the plan makes no reference to the need for growth of the faith institutions, what will flourishing in the future be like? Can a great city exist without nurturing its most deeply held beliefs?

Cardus, a think-tank that studies social architecture and which has undertaken similar work in Toronto and Hamilton, has now completed the first of a multi-phase undertaking designed to answer these questions. We have conducted an audit of the physical infrastructure that supports the work of faith communities in the Calgary city centre. The existence of structures like churches, mosques, and temples speak to the fact that worship has been part of what it means to be human since the beginning of time. Faith communities, just like arts and business communities, have impacts on citizens whether or not they participate in them.

This is what we have discovered and some of the questions we hope to address in the next phases of our work.

There are 25 spaces devoted to worship within the boundaries of Calgary's Centre City. They range from historic Christian churches, to a Buddhist Monastery, to spaces provided for Muslim Friday prayers. There are no synagogues, mosques, LDS, Hindu or Sikh temples.

The spaces that do exist are in some cases used by multiple religious communities. They are networked with each other, with governments, non-profits, and businesses to provide a vast range of social services. The religious communities in the downtown core are responsible for the creation of significant levels of social capital in volunteer hours, charitable activity and infrastructure serving the needs of the underclass.

Additionally, churches offer a wide range of services which aren't specifically religious, nor necessarily aimed at the poor, but contribute to the arts, physical fitness, language learning, job search and skills enhancement.

The precise impacts of limiting the participation of faith institutions in these areas will be the subject of future work but it is clear that without the Mustard Seed, Salvation Army, Inn From the Cold, Calgary Urban Project Society (CUPS), Neighbourlink, FaithLink, AA, NA, and other groups using religious spaces in downtown Calgary, the city core would be a very different place. One does not have to be a believer to recognize that institutions of faith have -- if nothing else -- sociological value as incubators of social virtues.

Calgary's historic churches played a significant role in the establishment of the city, its character and its culture. St. Patrick Roman Catholic Church was built in 1883 in East Calgary, was later moved and renamed Our Lady of Peace before finally becoming St. Mary's Cathedral. Knox United Church (originally Knox Presbyterian) was built in 1883, Cathedral Church of the Redeemer by the Anglicans in 1884, and Trinity Lutheran Church in 1889. Over the years, other venues were added to reflect diversity and include worship spaces for francophones, Hungarians, Ethiopians and Eritreans, Vietnamese, Hispanic, Chinese and other Asian communities.

Beyond the spiritual, the Cardus work shows these congregations provide a vast range of services to the wider community, including language instruction, food and clothing banks, addiction recovery groups, work with the homeless, the unemployed, single mothers, HIV patients, temporary housing and social assistance. These spaces are also used for music concerts, performing arts, marriage counselling and child care for those who live, work in or visit the downtown core.

As the makeup of Calgary's downtown residential population changes, so too will the need for worship spaces to reflect those changes. Adding 40,000 residents means there will be a need for space well beyond present capacity. The extent to which the current Centre City plan creates a disincentive to diversity within the core will be a matter for further study. It's also a conversation that needs to engage us all.

Ray Pennings is Senior Fellow and Director of Research for Cardus.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Great+cities+need+leadership+resources+spirit/3698326/story.html#ixzz12tjLbSNh

Cardus Center for Cultural Renewal

2010-10-16T10:58:00.002-06:00

We held a Calgary launch this week and the Herald today has a fine piece outlining what we do.

New centre building roads between culture and faith
By Mario Toneguzzi, Calgary HeraldOctober 16, 2010 7:51 AM CALGARY - The Centre for Cultural Renewal has existed for two decades with a mission to explain faith to culture and culture to faith. But this year, it joined with think-tank Cardus to become the Cardus Centre for Cultural Renewal.

"Essentially, what (the centre) does is look at issues of faith broadly defined. It's not a denominational organization. It's certainly not an evangelizing organization," said centre director Peter Stockland.

"But it tries to look at the way people's faiths and beliefs impact their ability to function as full and effective citizens."

Stockland was in Calgary on Thursday for the Calgary launch of the centre with Cardus. The centre has a publication called LexView. It also holds an annual Parliament Hill lecture in Ottawa.

"We share so many commonalities with (Cardus) and we take such a similar approach in terms of the need to look at issues of faith in the public square," said Stockland.

Peter Menzies, a senior fellow with Cardus, said Cardus studies "social architecture."

"We're not left. We're not right. We're actually not all that interested in those sorts of definitions," he said.

"We basically work to study and support public intellectuals who are interested in the study of society's key institutions."

Menzies said the organization is "unapologetic" about the fact its intellectual capacities are founded in 2,000 years of Christian thinking. "We don't evangelize in that sense ... We provide a venue for people with an intellectual foundation in Christian thought to participate in public square discussions."

Its website describes Cardus as a think-tank -- an ideas lab for social innovation.

"We build intellectual capacity, social networks and policy alternatives to sustain a wide range of cultural entrepreneurs for the renewal of North American social architecture."

Team members are throughout Canada and the United States, with a home base in Hamilton, Ont.

"The Cardus was a kind of marketplace or public square that took the form of a public street," says the organization's website. "It was the north-south road that connected people in Roman cities to their major public spaces.

"We face a growing gap. Our institutions and cities are connected by high speed networks that move people, products and information with increasing speed. This acceleration has important cultural implications. Cardus conducts research that explores how these changes will redefine our moral and political horizons."

mtoneguzzi@calgaryherald.com

For those in the Ottawa area or who have reason to be in Ottawa this week, the Ottawa launch of the CCCR and the Hill lecuture will take place this coming Wednesday,October 20th. It is sounding like we are expecting a very good attendance but more are always welcome.

Articles worth referencing....

2010-10-13T09:50:00.003-06:00

Last week Friday, the Globe and Mail ran my piece "The Wildrose Shot heard round Alberta - and Ottawa."

Saturday in the Calgary Herald ran a story which referenced some research Cardus will be releasing next week about the contribution of faith and faith-based agencies to Calgary's city core.

A colleague brought to my attention an article by Margaret Sommerville already a few months old which helpfully highlights the role of religion in the public square, and how it is a mistake to think that secularism is neutral. Worth a read.

Changing Focus

2010-10-13T09:31:00.004-06:00

The politicians have various phrases (prorogue, recalibrate, going on a listening tour, etc.) they use when they need to change the agenda, and it appears that my commitment to this page needs a similar agenda change. When I started blogging, I resolved that a 3-4 entry per week was required to make this meaningful for writer and reader. Despite best efforts, it simply is proving impossible to keep up this pace. There are good reasons - the pace at Cardus is simply much faster with larger projects, more project proposals, and speaking opportunities coming our way, all demanding more of my time and creative energy. Throw in my commitment to getting my Masters degree completed sooner rather than later, volunteer and family responsiblities, and the reality that I am learning to enjoy myself (took Thanksgiving weekend off and read both Inside Harperland and Taking the High Road- last year I would've blogged a review of both; now I simply enjoyed them, put them down and went for a snooze.)

So rather than beat myself up over this, I am simply resigning myself to the reality. Hence, for the foreseeable future, the focus of this page will change a bit. I will link events / articles that I have written / articles of interest perhaps with one or two sentence explanations but no attempt to provide further commentary. This will allow (a) this page to provide a useful archive for myself in finding documents of interest and (b) provide a potential resource for others who may be interested in some of the same things I am to find articles of interest. Perhaps in the future again I will find time or occasion to provide more regular commentary on current events again, but for the time being, this page will end up with more of an aggregator feel.

Kids, Appeals, and Prostitutes

2010-09-30T08:26:00.004-06:00

Why (Not) Having Kids is a Public Concern - The Institute for Marriage and the Family released a study on Canada's demographic challenge. It's conclusion:

CONCLUSION
Like many other developed nations, Canada is an aging society with a total fertility rate below replacement. This will increase the fiscal strain and dictate future policy priorities. Common state responses have included increased immigration, social spending reform, and fiscal incentives to encourage fertility. Sustained fertility growth has been difficult to achieve.

A robust national dialogue on the coming demographic shift is needed. This report has offered several recommendations for policymakers. Policymakers should encourage citizens to prepare for the coming fiscal challenges and should remove government barriers that discourage families from expanding. This report recommends policymakers,
● Encourage Canadians to prepare for the future, planning for long term fiscal, housing and health care needs. Resources for future seniors may not be as readily available. Families need to plan together and discuss desires and expectations.
● Encourage families to save and reduce personal debt. Families must prepare for a future with smaller government provided entitlements. The burden will fall more squarely on individuals themselves.
● Encourage a culture that values marriage. A strong marriage culture can contribute to fertility growth. Marriage remains the best institution for developing citizens whose productivity will be increasingly important in an aging society. This begins with the recognition of the importance of marriage.

The size of a family is a personal decision with national implications. While increasing fertility over the long term is difficult, Canadians can begin preparing for the coming demographic shift. It’s time to engage in a national conversation about Canada’s shrinking families.

Of Course He Did - I was struck by a headline this morning in the Globe that "Stephen Harper Pondered Appeal to Queen over Prorogation." While the context of the article is Lawrence Martin's new book on Harper and the end of Governor General Jean's term and the substance of the article actually provides a few tidbits of interest for political junkies, this headline strikes me as just plain stupid. I would expect any leader facing a decision - and the fact of a national government being overturned is not quite an everyday run of the mill decision -- to consider all of the options available and run through the pros and cons of each.

Prostitution Laws - The Ontario court decision overturning a substantial part of our prostitution laws has prompted the predictable stream of coverage. Some columns highlight the difficulty of court made law and tight deadlines challenging Parliament's responsiblity; others make the libertarian case that prostitution may be a moral question but should not be a legal one while the opposite case regarding the harmful effects on those involved in the industry as well as society at large does make this a matter for public policy.

There will be plenty of time (although relatively little interest) to reflect on the public debate as this issue winds it inevitable path to our Supreme Court. For now, two observations.
1. The existing "compromise" law that made prostitution legal but everything around it illegal was hypocritical. A few years ago, a Calgary court case highlighted the hypocricy of the city collecting licence fees from escorts while pretending to not know what was really going on in this industry. While I have not read enough of the evidence in this case to form an opinion as to whether the Ontario judge here was using her position to push the envelope for court-made law on a social issue (something that Canada's courts have demonstrated a willingness to do, making me suspicious) or whether the evidence she was presented with was really overwhelming regarding the safety of prostitutes, there is little doubt that the law as it existed seemed hypocritical so it is hardly surprising that it got struck down.
2. The argument of what is the task of the state regarding moral choices will form the subtext for the follow-up debate. Libertarians from both the left and the right will argue that this really involves a matter of individual choice over which the state ought to have no say; those opposed to prostitution will argue the morality and public consequences of prostitution laws shape the culture in which we live. As those involved in arguing the case in a setting where clearly there is no moral consensus among the population regarding this matter, I wonder whether utilizing environmental metaphors and talking about the impact of moral pollution on our social air might provide some assistance to thinking about how to make the case publicly. I am not that optimistic, however, that an adequate moral consensus exists within which to effectively debate the real issues.

Cardus Promos.....

2010-09-27T08:55:00.006-06:00

With more than a week having passed since my last entry, I suppose it is stating the obvious to indicate that my commitment to update this page with some regularity is slipping. No real excuses except an extremely busy schedule with a few technical difficulties thrown into the mix. Today I need to save my creative writing energy for a few documents that require publishing quality so the best I can offer up here are a few links to relevant articles that may be of interest....

Cardus at 10 - Last Tuesday, Cardus celebrated the tenth anniversary of Michael Van Pelt's hiring as President which really marked the launch of the current phase of Cardus. We were privileged to have Preston Manning join us and offer some remarks and reflections - the audio is available here. Lloyd Mackey was also in attendance and made it the subject of his weekly Ottawawatch column - you can find that on canadianchristianity.com here.

Joustra on Ecumenical Social Justice - My colleague Rob Joustra has written an insightful review of a book on ecumenical social justice. In his review, Rob rightly highlights the danger of the church wading into areas beyond its technical competence, with policy prescriptions that in addition to be imprudent politics, often have as their impact a cheapening of the gospel. On the other hand, he does hold out the important prophetic task of the church.

LexView on Hiring by Religious Groups - This morning a new LexView has been posted which deals with the Christian Horizons case and the challenges facing religious institutions in their hiring practices. LexView is the newest Cardus publication, which has come to us through our partnership with the Cardus Center for Cultural Renewal. It provides top quality summaries of legal cases and their implications and the recently updated archives make many of these earlier issues accessible in electronic format.

Civil Religion

2010-09-18T02:44:00.003-06:00

John Seel has a fine piece in Comment Friday on the dangers of civil relgiion. I have a short follow-up piecing reflecting on the application of what he says in a Canadian context. I recommend hitting the links and reading the whole things, but a teaser from each to give you a taste.

But understanding the proper role of civil religion is complex. It is a normal symptom of national stress. It is about finding national meaning and purpose grounded in the transcendent. ......"No culture has ever preserved itself," he concludes, "where it is not a registration of sacred order." Our age is unprecedented because unlike all societies in the past, we do not publicly ground our social order in the sacred. As a result, for many, today's appeals to civil religion sound odd or even alarming. What was once common is no longer as widely accepted in public discourse.
But civil religion also has its dangers, and these dangers are best kept in mind, particularly when we feel under stress. For civil religion can dilute genuine religious belief and eventually lead to idolatry. Idolatry is not a term common to civic discourse, but it's appropriate here.

Civil religion insists on providing a faith that is inclusive of all religious views and all citizens. It eschews exclusivity. So the civil religion's pattern is to water down religious doctrine by deemphasizing belief over symbolic practices that usually cost one nothing. It reinforces the tendency to accommodate one's faith to fits one's social surroundings. It is an ecumenism of the lowest common denominator, where the citizenship in the City of Man is blurred with that in the City of God. And while we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, in the final analysis, a Christian believer's "citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). This fact trumps all other commitments and loyalties. And herein is the fundamental danger of civil religion.

And from my contribution....

That this is unsustainable is increasingly self-evident and civil religionists—of both the cosmopolitan and Christian persuasion—are increasingly engaging in public discussion on these matters. I suspect both sides of the border need to recognize that if we are to live together in peace, we must have some conception of what constitutes the "public good" that transcends the simple majority opinion of the day. At the same time, we need to recognize that the public square is not equipped to sort through competing truth claims of various faith perspectives, be they religious or secular truth claims: A new sort of civil discourse is required.

Benson on Public Religion

2010-09-16T07:27:00.003-06:00

Iain Benson has an excellent piece in today's Ottawa Citizen entitled "Why 'public' should not mean 'atheist'."

Too often we fall into a secularistic understanding in which the public sphere is described as "secular," meaning "non-religious," but this fails to pass the legal, practical or logical tests once we recognize that the public sphere is made up of religious and non-religious citizens.

Nothing in our theories or history should support turning religious believers and their communities into second-class citizens when it comes to public involvement and funding. In short, atheism and agnosticism ought not to be favoured public claimants in Canada any longer.

Political Catchup....

2010-09-15T08:39:00.002-06:00

It's been a while since I reflected on Canadian political goings on, in part due to time and in part because in the dog days of summer, much of what passes for political news is overblown. However with Parliament resuming next week, it makes sense to do a very quick "catch up stage setter" entry with a view to providing more regular commentary on Canadian things political as they happen.

Gun Registry - The first major focus will be next Wednesday's vote on the gun registry. It seems this morning that enough NDP members will now align with the opposition in this "free vote" to ensure that the gun registry stays and the Conservatives lose. I agree with Chantal Hebert and Don Martin who conclude in their columns this morning that losing this vote is actually what the Conservatives prefer to do, as the longer term politics are advantageous. It focuses the NDP on the urban vote and makes it more difficult for them to stay in touch with the rural support base for the party, which puts a number of seats into play for the Conservatives which are necessary for them to win if majority government is ever to become real.

Decorum Proposal - Michael Chong, a one-time Conservative cabinet minister who resigned on principle when the government passed its Quebec as a nation resolution, has been busy working on a bill that has the potential to significantly alter the way we do Question Period and day to day politics when the House is in session. It will be most interesting to watch how this unfolds.

Budgets and Economics - Dollars will be the main theme of the fall session, with both the government and opposition working to succeed in embedding their competing narratives in the public mindset. The opposition will jump on every piece of bad news to reinforce how the government's plan isn't working, how the stimulus has been wrongly targetted and poorly delivered, and all the government has really done is provide their corporate friends with a $6 billion tax cut while accumulating a huge deficit. Any good news will be ignored by the opposition or simply credited to global trends.

The Conservatives on the other hand, need to build on their stronger numbers as economic managers. All good news is, of course, a result of their wise initiative and an opportunity to highlight how Canada has fared better than other western countries through this challenge. They too, will welcome some bad news, as it fits into their narrative that the recovery is tenuous and still needs strong Conservative managing hands.

Both sides of the House will be polling extensively on which narrative the public is buying and it is this issue which will become most determinative of when the next election will be held.

Speaking of Polls - Too much has been made of the week-to-week polls as an assessment of how the various Conservative missteps and supposedly successful Ignatieff tour are affecting things. While these things contribute to overall impressions and what becomes plausible and possible during the next campaign, none of this is really that significant in itself. It will be the campaign that determines the next election, not the polls going into the campaign.

It will be an interesting fall.

The Church in the City

2010-09-14T20:56:00.003-06:00

Albert Mohler raises some timely reflections in response to a Foreign Policy issue on the growing influence of cities.

There is reason for concern. The cities were the strategic platforms for ministry and missions in the first century, but the last century and more has been a time of retreat in terms of Christian impact in many of the world’s great cities. The twentieth century was, in terms of Western cities, a period of radical secularization. While Harvard theologian Harvey Cox’s 1965 blockbuster The Secular City was controversial, its title was not.

Evangelicals now face the great challenge of these massive Western cities, filled with populations marked by great diversity in terms of ethnicity, language, worldview, and culture. Thankfully, there are standout examples of faithful church planting and ministry in many of these cities, but the populations remain overwhelmingly secular and unevangelized.

Humility a Prerequisite for learning

2010-09-08T09:43:00.002-06:00

My colleague Rob Joustra has helpfully posted an excerpt from a book by Mark Schwehn on the Cardusafterhours blog.

Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America, Mark Schwehn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 48f:

Consider the virtue of humility. Much of what passes for laziness or the proverbial ‘lack of motivation’ among today’s students really involves a lack of humility, stemming in part from a lack of piety or respect for the aspect of God’s ongoing creation that manifests itself in works of genius. I recently asked students why they had not thought through a particular passage from St. Augustine on friendship and loss. I knew, because I had by that time grown to know these students very well, that they cared very much about the matters that Augustine was examining. I had not realized, however, that some of my students were easily convinced on the basis of a quick reading of the text, that Augustine was simply mistaken or overly agitated about these matters. Others complained that Augustine was unnecessarily obscure. All of them dismissed the passage in a preemptory fashion.

Current educational theory would suggest, in the face of these student comments, that I had failed properly to motivate them to want to learn about friendship and loss or that I had not managed to make Augustine accessible to them. I had probably failed in these ways. But my students could have overcome my failings had they been sufficiently humble; had they presumed that Augustine’s apparent obscurity was their problem, not his; and had they presumed that his apparent inconsistencies or excesses were not really the careless errors they took them to be. Humility on this account does not mean uncritical acceptance; it means, in practical terms, the presumption of wisdom and authority in the author. Students and faculty today are far too often ready to believe that Kant was just, in a given passage, murky or that Aristotle was pointlessly repetitive or that Tolstoy was, in the battle scenes of War and Peace, needlessly verbose. Such quick, easy and dismissive appraisals preclude the possibility of learning from these writers. Yes, some of these judgments may be warranted, but the practice of humility at least prevents them from being made summarily. Some degree of humility is a precondition for learning.

Labour Day Thoughts

2010-09-06T11:17:00.002-06:00

Came across (h/t Justin Taylor) this helpful piece by Gene Veith relating to vocation, a suitable link for this Labour Day.

In all our religious and ethical life," says Einar Billing in his classic work on vocation, Our Calling, "we are given to an incredible overestimation of the extraordinary at the expense of the ordinary." We look for miracles, spectacular events , and mountain top experiences. Meanwhile, the spiritual significance of everyday life gets overlooked. Vocation, though, transfigures our ordinary, mundane existence, charging it with spiritual significance and with the very presence of God.

Luther said that changing a baby's diaper is a holy work. A child doing his chores is outperforming the Carthusian monks in works of holiness. By extension, we can see the office desk, the factory machinery, the computer screen—likewise the voting booth, the marriage bed, the dining room table—as altars upon which we exercise our royal priesthood.

Vocation is where sanctification happens, as Christians grow spiritually in good works and in their relationships. Vocation is where evangelism happens, as Christians teach their children and interact with nonbelievers. Vocation is where cultural influence happens, as Christians take their places and live out their faith in every niche of society.

Vocation changes the quality of what we do. An artist with a sense of vocation will create not just to express himself or to advance his career but to love and serve—not corrupt or ridicule—his audience. A businessman who sees his customers as the objects of his Christian love will serve them with his very best work.

From the outside, the economy has to do with the division of labor, individuals pursuing their own self-interests, laws of supply and demand, and other impersonal forces. And so it is, as part of God's created order. From the inside, however, the economy can become transfigured into a vast network of mutual dependence and mutual service, and economic activity can become an expression of love.

Christians can celebrate on Labor Day the joining of our work with God's work.

Read the whole article on the World website.

Canada Adrift in a Religious World

2010-09-04T16:29:00.002-06:00

Catching up on my in-box this afternoon, my attention was drawn to a worthwhile piece published by the Toronto Star in late July.

The Toronto Star - July 29, 2010
Canada adrift in religious world: Secular Canadian youth ill-equipped for working in a world where religion is still very much alive By James Ron

Canada's mainstream seems almost oblivious to the role of religion in contemporary life. Although Christmas and Easter are widely celebrated, Canadians seem shocked anew each year when told their holidays mark religious events. "These are secular holidays," many claim; "surely no one actually believes they are celebrating Jesus's birth and death, do they?"

This head-in-the-sand approach is ubiquitous. In the superb graduate program where I now teach, Canada's finest global affairs students seem virtually illiterate when it comes to their own religion, or to the religions of others. Although they eagerly achieve competence in secular politics, they express little interest in learning the basics of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Judaism. This is true even when students express keen interest in promoting development and conflict-resolution in places such as Morocco, India, Sri Lanka or Israel. In these (and most other) countries, faith plays a crucial role, and only the most naive secularist would claim otherwise.

Last semester, I taught a course on international human rights, and included a week on the links between rights and faith. To prompt discussion, I asked a student to present a paper on Jewish theological debates about the rights of non-Jews. "Imagine you are a UN official tasked with convincing Jewish settlers to improve their relations with Palestinians," I said. "Instead of referring to international human rights principles, however, draw on resources within the Jewish religious tradition." Surprisingly, student reactions ranged from indifference to dismay. "Isn't this just legitimating religion?" one asked. The others seemed peeved at having to even engage. If this reaction is true for Canada's finest students, imagine what the rest of secular Canada must be like.

A few weeks ago, my family attended an Ottawa fundraiser for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). A sign near the picnic stand said the wieners were made of both beef and pork. Startled at this combo, I asked the JDRF volunteers what message they might be sending their Hindu, Jewish and Muslim donors. They seemed confused; the men and women manning the barbecue had little idea that Hindus often shun beef, or that observant Jews and Muslims avoid pork. When I used the Muslim word for sanctified beef, "halal," confusion reigned supreme; "I can't even pronounce that word," one said, while another argued that Hindus, Muslims or Jews should just focus on the potato chips. After inquiring with the JDRF's Ottawa coordinator, I discovered that my inquiry was the first of its kind in their 16-year history. Never before, she said, had her staff been asked to accommodate religiously based diets.

Yet religious custom and belief is all around us. As journalist Marci MacDonald argues in The Armaggedon Factor, Canada's Christian right has become a major force in national politics. Canadian "theo-cons," she argues, were first stirred into action by the legalization of gay marriage. During the Bush years, moreover, their strength was bolstered by the tactics, passion and wealth of America's evangelicals. Religion is, in fact, a driving force in contemporary politics everywhere. As Harvard's Monica Toft argues, religiosity has outlived the great social movements and ideologies of the 20th century, including fascism, socialism and communism.

If Canadians know anything at all about religion, they tend to think of political Islam. This is true even though most "security experts" in this country would be hard-pressed to explain the basic tenets of that faith. Other religions are equally important, however. Consider Hindu nationalism, a potent force in Indian society and politics. Hindu nationalists authorized India's first nuclear weapon tests in 1998, and have frequently raised tensions with India's Muslim citizenry and Pakistan to fever pitch. Given Canada's large Indo-Canadian community and India's increasingly powerful role in global affairs, it behooves Canadians to know at least something about the complex, multi-faceted Hindu faith.

Jewish religious activists, similarly, play a powerful role in both Israeli and North American politics. They helped break the back of Israel's secular Zionists four decades ago, and have since joined forces with Christian Zionists to strengthen Israel's hold over the West Bank.
As a result, the cherished two-state, Israel/Palestine solution appears increasingly remote.

Global Christianity is a major player in other areas as well. Throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Protestant evangelicals are mobilizing large swathes of the population at unrivalled speed. The centre of Christian gravity is shifting, with dramatic implications for policies on maternal health, abortion, gender and child rights.

The list goes on. Sikh religious activists play vital roles in both India and Canada, and Sunni-Shiite cleavages are crucial in Iraq.
Everywhere one looks, from British Columbia to Mumbai, religion, politics and international affairs are deeply intertwined.

SOCIAL SCIENTISTS long ago ceased proclaiming that religion would disappear. Instead, most acknowledge that religion is, and will continue, to play key roles in public affairs. As a result, Canada's education system must roll up its sleeves and get to work. We must learn more about religion at home and abroad, and must initiate more comparative faith courses in our public schools and universities. The time to act is now. New schools of international affairs are sprouting across the country, in places such as Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver. None, however, seems to be recruiting the staff needed to teach sophisticated courses on religion's global impacts. Learning more about the tenets of global faith is not a secular concession to dogma.
Rather, it is a sign of respect for the billions worldwide who remain religiously motivated, as well as an indicator of intellectual curiosity, political sophistication and common sense.

James Ron is associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, and a former Canada Research Chair at McGill University.

(c) 2010 Torstar Corporation

August links....

2010-09-02T08:22:00.002-06:00

After a delightful vacation during August, I am back in the saddle. Catching up on what has transpired during a month away is a substantial assignment in itself, but to get us going on this page again, let me provide a few links to materials that have become available on-line during my absence....

PRTS CONFERENCE - The various speeches, including two that I provided, given at last week's PRTS conference on "The Beauty and Glory of Christ" are available on-line on sermonaudio's website.

COMMENT - I had a piece published in Comment last week regarding how reflecting on and discussing death is necessary for life.

Short-term horizons affect everything from our bank accounts to our construction projects. When things break down and decay, it will be someone else's problem. We stand and marvel at the cathedrals that took centuries and generations to build, but we hardly stop to reflect on what it says about us that we cannot muster the vision to undertake these sorts of projects. Most fundamentally, not thinking beyond ourselves deprives us of our sense of purpose and hope.

Critiqued on the Canadian Journalism Project I notice that Wilfrid Laurier University Professor Ken Paradis referenced my critical review of Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor on the Canadian Journalism website.

The New York Times on Sabbath

2010-07-30T23:58:00.002-06:00

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article on sabbath-keeping in modern society. I found it a bit of a sad piece, as it essentially despaired of the realistic possiblity of maintaining a sabbath-keeping mindset in the midst of our hectic world, even as it lauded the desirability of doing the same. Having been born and raised in a tradition where sabbath keeping is a practice maintained as a sense of religious obligation but also appreciating the privilege that this provides, I can attest to the blessings that maintaining a strict observance of the Christian sabbath can have for one's spiritual but also physical and emotional well-being. Not to reduce the arguments for sabbath-keeping to pragmatism (in fact, there are many occasions where pragmatically speaking, sabbath keeping provides a great obstacle to participating fully in contemporary culture), but for those who do not keep the sabbath out of religious conviction, the pragmatic arguments for its benefits are quite compelling in spite of the inconveniences.

The Miracle of Life

2010-07-30T11:05:00.002-06:00

Stories of about the miracles of life that show the limits of medical science always tug at my heart strings, in part because my own life has included such a miracle. A facebook friend posted a link to the attached video this morning and having just posted on the debate between the atheists and the agnostics, it seemed appropriate to post this link as well.

Atheists and Agnostics Tussle over Their Faith

2010-07-30T08:41:00.002-06:00

My morning scan (h/t Arts and Letters Daily) brought me across this article in Slate in which an agnostic challenges the new atheists for turning to science as a new religion, arguing that his agnosticism which celebrates uncertainty provides a better way of dealing with life's big questions.

"I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything. Agnosticism doesn't contend there are no certainties; it simply resists unwarranted untested or untestable certainties.

Agnosticism doesn't fear uncertainty. It doesn't cling like a child in the dark to the dogmas of orthodox religion or atheism. Agnosticism respects and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being."

As a Christian believer, I obviously disagree with both camps but I found the five-point debate between the New Athiests and Newer Agnostics outlined near the end of the article quite enlightening. At the end of the day, both are making arguments based on their faith in reason and, while my Christian faith is a reasonable faith, I recognize that it relies on revelation rather than reason for its ultimate confidence. Still an interesting and thought-provoking read.

Resource for Parents

2010-07-26T20:32:00.002-06:00

Dr. David Murray at Head Hearts and Hands blog has a promo trailer and a study guide featuring a forthcoming release of God's technology. It promises to be a very worthwhile resource.

God's Technology Trailer from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Big Society Needs Religion

2010-07-26T10:21:00.001-06:00

Passing along an article of interest from the London Guardian.

The 'big society' needs religion
The 'big society' will not work unless it is informed by religious ideas of free and reciprocal giving

Adrian Pabst
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 July 2010 16.35 BST
Article history

David Cameron's "big society" speech on Monday called for more "people power" and "a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social action". The trouble is that this requires not only an end to top-down, command-and-control state sovereignty but also civic limits on free-market capitalism. By viewing human associations and intermediary institutions as more fundamental than either state or market, religious traditions are indispensable to a vibrant civil society.

Much of secular politics still views the voluntary sector either as extension of the state or a sub-section of the market. This subordinates social bonds either to uniform state law or to proprietary market relations or both. Indeed, state and market collude by subjecting the whole of society to formal standards that abstract from real, embodied relations of family, friendship, community, habit, ritual and celebration – as Archbishop Rowan recently argued.

Moreover, the purpose and scope of voluntary, civic activity is severely constrained: it merely compensates for state and market failures, rather than supporting the autonomy of the communities, groups and associations that compose civil society.

Even when this autonomy is acknowledged (as with Cameron), voluntary action, philanthropic giving or social enterprise are often seen as a "third sector" separate from secular politics and for-profit business. If austerity is not just about retrenching government and expanding private delivery of public services, then both state and market must be radically reformed to support rather than undermine civic institutions.

Religions are central to an alternative vision that seeks to transform political and economic practices in line with gift-exchange and strong notions of the sacred. Linked to this is the inalienable dignity of persons and the intrinsic worth of our shared natural habitat. For life is ultimately a gift bestowed upon us and not a matter of legal entitlement or individual possession. For Christians that means a divine source creating the universe out of love and goodness – hence the sanctity of life and land.

From a religious perspective, the voluntary sector is about fostering and nurturing gift-exchange in society. The giving, receiving and returning of gifts is the most universal mode of human interaction. By providing the basis for social bonds of trust, reciprocity and mutuality, gift-exchange cuts across tribal, national and religious divisions.

Critics will object that gift-exchange either locks people into relationships of dependency or else is utopian and unworkable in modern societies. In turn, the reason is that gift-giving (like charitable giving to the poor) is unilateral and not really reciprocal at all.

This is to assume that gift-exchange is symmetric and equivalent – that we give and receive gifts of equal value from the same people. But surely the giving of gifts hopes for some return gift which it cannot compel. So when we give to the poor, we hope for – and half-expect – a word of gratitude that is itself a return gift. Gift-exchange is reciprocal because it's about mutual sympathy and social recognition.

Crucially, religious traditions teach us that gift-giving involves praise and thanks-giving for the gifts we receive. Consider when the beggar says "God bless" and really means it. This suggests that we are neither purely egoistic nor exclusively altruistic. Beyond utilitarian calculation, returning gifts – like moral and civic virtues – is priceless and not something which cash or credit cards could ever buy.

Moreover, charity is not just giving alms to the poor but building up inter-personal relationships, wider social ties and distributing wealth. Calls for "respect" "tolerance" or "dignity" are empty without the bonds of love, friendship and neighbourliness. For Christians, that's how we return (imperfectly and asymmetrically) the gift of love to God.

Distributing wealth through charity is more than redistributing income at the margin. It's about alleviating misery and gradually building up human and social capabilities, not simply accumulating commercial commodities.

Nor are the poor the only recipients of charity. As a volunteer helping with home care for the elderly, I give some of my time and energy in the hope that others will do likewise when I need help.

Thus, all gift exchange is asymmetric. Reciprocity may well be deferred, but surely a society in which human beings flourish is one that practices mutualism and "inter-generational" solidarity.

Some of that is a legal obligation, like compulsory public pension contributions or the taxpayer-funded NHS. But religious traditions show that solidarity is properly practised when it's genuinely voluntary and reciprocated .

Grassroots movements like London Citizens demonstrate just how central religious bodies are to community-organising and civic renewal. The task for a genuinely new politics is not simply to revive civil society but also transform state and market according to the principles and practices of gift-exchange.

See you in September

2010-07-22T20:59:00.002-06:00

I'm still almost two weeks away from actually heading on vacation and the various other activities that will fill my August, but the to-do list is still too long and the finite creative energy that I have is required to focus on a few articles and speeches that still need some spit and polish. So I made a unilateral decision tonight to not bother with this blog til September (this is one space over which I do have uncontested control and am free to make such decisions.) If items of interest come my way, I may post the occasional blog or link on this site and use facebook and twitter to advise readers of this. Generally though, I don't expect to try and keep up with this page until I am back in the saddle in September, hopefully refreshed and ready for what is scheduled to be a very busy fall.

The Stampede and Calgary's Diversity

2010-07-19T22:47:00.002-06:00

I chatted with Omni news today, sharing a few thoughts about the future of the Stampede in the context of a diversifying city. The report runs from about the 3:40 mark of the attached video.

Click here.

Saying I'm Sorry

2010-07-19T09:12:00.002-06:00

Saying sorry is difficult for most. Sadly it is also far too rare in our day. In Friday's Comment, John Terrill reflects on last month's almost perfect game in Major League Baseball and how the reaction to a mistake made can provide some lessons for all of us.

A genuine mea culpa, the story flies in the face of modern-day events and practice (and legal counsel to boot). Wall Street firms aren't offering apologies. BP's been mostly mum. Even the Catholic Church is stingy when it comes to confessing its sins. The cover story of the June 7, 2010 issue of Time is entitled Why Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry.

We'd all benefit by paying attention to baseball's act of generosity. Civility breeds good will, and good will generates trust, and trustworthiness contributes to human flourishing.

Reading this article reminded me of how central forgiveness is to a Christian understanding of the world and how we should live in it. Sometimes it seems that a "rights" and "merit" mentality has come to dominate contemporary life, also in the church, and we are all the poorer for it. Baseball is an unlikely place for us to be reminded of the power of forgiveness but it is a lesson worth paying attention to.

Modern Mercenaries

2010-07-17T22:54:00.002-06:00

Just came across this Wall Street Journal article which highlights the silliness of a union hiring non-union workers to protest the hiring of non-union help. I suppose that the use of mercenaries goes back centuries and has probably always produced ironies but somehow reading it in print amplifies the silliness. But perhaps the greater irony is that the inconistency hardly matters.

It reminds me of an incident now roughly fifteen years ago, when I was working as CLAC's Public Affairs Director and attended a Toronto Public School Board meeting to make a presentation. It turns out that a good number of protestors with an opposite point of view to mine were present and as we were waiting outside before the meeting room doors opened, I approached one of them who was handing out copies of an article that had been recently published in a magazine which had some unkind (and in my view, less than balanced) things to say about CLAC. I had been interviewed for the article and my picture featured prominently on the second page. The gentleman handing out the articles did not recognize me and when I asked him what hte article was about, what motivated him to hand it out, and what was so bad about CLAC, he admitted that quite quickly that he was unemployed and had been hired for this task and really wasn't that literate about the issues in dispute. I opened his handout to the page that included my picture, indicated that I really felt that if he was intending to hand out propoganda against me, he should at least have an elementary understanding of the issues. He was quite eager to end the conversation and soon disappeared into the crowd. My sense was that the crowd of persons who oversheard our exchange ended up sympathizing with me (including some who were as best I could tell being similarly paid to hold signs for the other side).

The point of this all, however, is that it really doesn't matter much. The end game of hiring protest mercenaries is having a crowed that looks impressive enough to warrant news coverage. Success is measured in media hits which translates into political heat. Neither commitment to a cause nor coherence of argument win the day. It's heat rather than light that ends up winning the day.

The Slow Reading Movement

2010-07-17T18:23:00.002-06:00

I post this because it picks up on a discussion a few friends had over a bbq last evening. Does internet reading -- with its hyperlinks allowing us to hop from article to article, short quick pieces and formats like news aggregators and news readers -- diminish our capacity (or at least our practice) of reading longer more in-depth pieces? Patrick Kingsley in this London Guardian article (h/t ALDAILY)tells us about the slow-reading movement, suggests the IPAD may be a helpful half-way solution but still suggests that time needs to be consciously carved out in order to read more substantial pieces.

What does compromise cost?

2010-07-16T08:33:00.002-06:00

Compromise is part of politics. It's doesn't satisfy as a technical definition, but a working definition for politics is "that process by which a group of people sort through their differences as they live together." The consequence is that rarely does anyone succeed in getting their ideas wholly implemented. Usually the solutions that are found involve some give and take, a workable compromise is implemented, and we "move on" to the next issue, sometimes declaring that "we had that debate and the matter is settled" to silence those who are dissatisfied, and occasionally revisiting the matter when we sense the general perceptions have changed and a more favourable outcome (from the point of view of those who raise the subject) is possible.

What prompts these thoughts is an essay posted this week on Americanheritage.com on the constitutional compromises involved in the American constitutional convention of 1789. (Hat tip to Arts and Letters Daily for linking this essay) In particular, Professor Ellis's conclusion that the civil war was a consequence of the compromise brokered at the constitutional convention regarding slavery deserves reflection.

What are the compromises that we are making today that will require eventual resolution, potentially in a forum less civil then the public square forums available to us today? Recognizing this reality does not ease its resolution. I think Professor Ellis' observation in conclusion of his essay provides a sober but realistic evaluation of the realities that are sometimes faced in public life, and increasingly so in a society where there is such diverse range of views on the meaning and source of human dignity, the purpose of life, and the appropriate task of government and the ways democracy can and should function. At a minimum, it is a warning against the hubris that sometimes accompanies our sense of accomplishments in the west today.

The second Great Compromise, much like the first, postponed a deeply divisive political problem that seemed impossible to resolve at the time. It was clear to all the delegates that a definitive resolution of the slavery question—most especially any insistence that slavery be gradually phased out—would have doomed passage and ratification of the Constitution. The distasteful but nonnegotiable reality was that one could have a nation with slavery, or one could not have a nation. Every argument about the accommodations with slavery reached by the framers that summer in Philadelphia should be made within the context of that reality.

Of all the political compromises in American history, the second Great Compromise brokered at the Constitutional Convention was probably the most controversial and most consequential. Much like the first Great Compromise, the decision it delayed eventually required a Civil War to resolve. The celebratory glow surrounding the framers today needs to be replaced by a more somber light, and the moral podiums from which people second-guess their judgments should be put aside forever.

Musing about Calgary's Future in the Globe

2010-07-15T07:34:00.003-06:00

The Globe and Mail today published an op-ed by yours truly which muses about the Calgary Stampede, the sort of values it represents, and the implications for the growing city of Calgary in the decades to come.

Will Alberta's cowboys soon bite the dust?
As Calgary becomes a city of immigrants, how can it retain its rodeo sensibilities?

Ray Pennings

Calgary — From Thursday's Globe and Mail

.If you want to see Canada’s growing urban-rural divide play out on a cultural level, keep your eye on the fate of the annual Stampede Rodeo and Rangeland Derby, currently under way in Canada’s fourth-largest city and a canary in the coal mine of social change.

Recent predictions forecast that Calgary, which has doubled in size in 30 years to 1.1 million residents, will again more than double over the course of two generations to 2.5 million by 2050. My grandchildren’s generation will live in a city roughly the same size as the Toronto of 2001, and with a similar demographic texture.

How Calgary, which is already a modern urban environment, can expect to retain the visible expressions – ridin’, ropin’, wrasslin’ and wranglin’ – that celebrate its unique cultural roots in what will become an über-urban culture is a question that should dominate its civic conversation. But while most North American cities would kill for an identifying brand as robust as the Stampede, Calgary’s elite is once again seeking to “rebrand” the city’s image into something assumedly more modern.

Calgary’s development plans call for the importation of an additional 40,000 to 50,000 residents within its downtown core, creating density levels rivalling those in Manhattan and condo towers that inexplicably overlook the rodeo and chuckwagon competition venue. And while the city’s talent and labour pool has traditionally drawn people from across the country, the baby boom’s extinction-inclined levels of reproduction combined with the increased competitiveness of Saskatchewan and British Columbia means a steadily increasing reliance on new immigrants to sustain Calgary’s economy.

Indeed, as recently as two years ago, while Alberta’s overall population growth continued, the province actually suffered negative interprovincial migration, which means more native-born Canadians were leaving Alberta than coming to it. Population growth is primarily dependent on new births and immigrants, without whom the economy would be grinding to a halt but who have no roots in or connections to a rural Canadian, let alone cowboy, culture.

Inevitably, this will have an impact on the city’s look, feel and sense of itself. Given that immigration is primarily to large urban centres, the gap will grow into a gulf between those cultures and those of rural Alberta and elsewhere in Canada where population levels are relatively stable – or, if you prefer, stagnant. Without the stimulation of economic growth in those areas, which will be increasingly rare as economies shift from the industrial to the technological age, immigrants won’t be drawn to small-town Canada in enough numbers to influence and be influenced by rural traditions and values.

The rural-urban divide, already evident in voting behaviour (Edmonton-Calgary vs. the rest of Alberta; Toronto vs. the rest of Ontario, etc.) is going to grow and grow. And, given that the Stampede is a celebration of profoundly rural roots, its marquee events may end up fighting for survival.

Rodeo has already been forced to adapt to urban sensibilities that a generation ago would barely have been seen as sensible. Calf roping is now referred to as tie-down roping and, even more significantly, it and steer wrestling were eliminated a couple of years ago as events in B.C.’s Cloverdale Rodeo, which is one of Canada’s largest. This followed an incident in which a calf was put down after its leg was broken.

People raised on a farm have a deeply respectful but entirely different view (some would argue far more realistic) of livestock and their connection with humans than do people who live in cities. Downtown and in suburbia, the long-standing philosophical and theological line drawn between humanity and the world’s other creatures grows ever more blurred: When animals are experienced primarily as pets and when food bountifully appears in grocery stores and restaurants without evidence of violence, the death of an animal is a tragedy.

In the rural experience, animals die all the time; the event is neither rare nor does it evoke the same confused emotional response. Simply, it is nature.

Maintaining a common language that can bridge the gap between urban and rural Canada will be among the great challenges of the century and, hopefully the cowboy, the cowgirl, and all for which they stand, do not become its most endangered species.

Ray Pennings is senior fellow and research director of Cardus, an independent policy institute.

Labels without Adjectives

2010-07-14T11:24:00.002-06:00

Two articles came to my attention in the past 24 hours which make similar points. In yesterday's Washington Post, Chris Seiple argues that we should simply call terrorists terrorists, without the label of a particular religion attached. In today's National Post, Marni Soupcoff argues that there is no need to change the law to deal with honour killings - simply use the existing laws dealing with murder.

The point they make is, I think, a prudent one. The law should deal with our actions, not our thoughts. We have witnessed the foolishness of Human Rights Commissions in Canada trying to legislate against wrong motive or possible consequence, rather than objectively dealing with the specific actions, with all sorts of bizarre consequence.

This is not to say that there are no motives or consequences to our actions that may not be distasteful or cause us to distinguish between similar looking actions. We should not take this argument to eliminate moral distinctions. However, that sort of debate and discussion probably best takes place in other contexts than legal ones. It is hardly a perfect solution, but in this world where we pursue proximate justice it rarely is, but I think it is a prudent one to use fewer adjectives and instead, focus on dealing with terrorism or murder.

UN Generosity

2010-07-14T08:55:00.002-06:00

Gloria Mbagwu sent me an email this morning advising me that the UN has nothing better to do these days than to serve as my personal Brinks agents.

This is to notify you that your funds of US$15.5 Million is already in your country.

The funds was delivered with a United Nations Cargo plane and cleared customs at the airport without hitches. It has been deposited in a United Nations Storage facility for safekeeping until arrangements is concluded to have it delivered to you with a U.N Chauffeur driven car to your residential address or any address of your choosing.

If you are still interested in receiving the funds, please provide the address where you want the funds delivered, your direct telephone number as well as your occupation and work address.

Regards

Gloria Mbagwu

I am used to receiving emails advising me of the deep concern that various members of obselete royal families have for my personal financial wellbeing, but this is the first time my financial affairs have warranted a UN escort. I feel grateful and honoured.

The Ignatieff Tour

2010-07-13T16:45:00.003-06:00

Joe Clark lost his luggage on a trip to Isreal. Robert Stanfield fumbled a football during the 1974 election campaign. Fairly or unfairly, these images became symbols that were constantly raised throughout their political careers.

Whether or not Michael Ignatieff's summer tour will similarly stamp his image remains to be seen, but it is clearly not off to a great start. It appears his bus broke down this afternoon, leaving him and reporters to catch rides to the next event. This follows a rainy event this morning, and some ill-advised comments at his Calgary stampede event on Saturday.

While the images and media coverage to date are hardly those that Liberal planners were seeking, I agree with Keith Beardsley that underestimating Mr. Ignatieff would be a fatal mistake on the part of the Conservatives. What I suspect this all does do, however, is further ensure that an election this fall is, barring an entirely unforeseen factor coming into play, very very unlikely. The Conservatives cannot afford the political fallout of being seen to provoke an election and this tour will confirm for most Liberals that running in the present circumstances is unlikely to provide a happy outcome. CalgaryGrit has a thoughtful blog entry today which updates seat projections based on current polls, with the result that another Conservative minority would be the likely outcome of an election (although the post rightly points out that campaigns do matter in Canadian elections.) What is significant is the note that the Conservatives have 106 "safe seats" compared to 42 "safe seats" for the Liberals, which highlights that even with unforeseen campaign events favouring the Libs, achieving government would be a very tall order.

In defending his controversial reference to the ``whiff of sulfur`coming from (Prime Minister Harper), Mr. Ignatieff told Evan Solomon ``Don`t take it too seriously.`` I suspect most Canadians won`t and this tour will largely be watched by political junkies who already have their mind made up for the next election. But just as in sports, it is often what happens (or doesn`t) during practice that ends up being significant factor in the outcome of the game, this tour may provide insight into what is to come in Canadian politics. As for the pictures provided by the tour today, Mr. Ignatieff is hoping that isn`t the case and that none of us take it too seriously.

Land of the Free.....

2010-07-12T10:39:00.003-06:00

My Monday morning news skim brought to light two articles relating to the freedom of religion, or more accurately the lack thereof, in the United States of America.

Four Christians were arrested at an Arab festival in Dearborn, MI for breaching the peace after attending a Muslim festival with a view to evangelize. The story as reported in World seems to suggest that the festival has become a focal point for Christian-Muslim interaction, with some questions regarding the tactics that different groups have/ are using, but the context is disturbing to be sure.

I also note that the University of Illinois has fired an Adjunct Professor for expressing his views on the morality of homosexual sex.

Disturbing indicators in a society that is a lot less tolerant than it thinks itself to be.

Happy Birthday John Calvin!

2010-07-10T00:14:00.002-06:00

Last year, a fair fuss was being made about this day simply because the anniversary year ended in a zero. This year it ends in a one but July 10th still remains the anniversary of John Calvin's birth. With pleasant reminiscing thoughts on my adventures of a year ago, I repost the article I wrote for Comment reflecting on this day.

Would John Calvin have come to his own birthday party?

July 10, 2009, marked the 500th birthday of John Calvin, and celebrations were organized to commemorate all over the globe. For a man who insisted on being buried in an unmarked grave, Calvin has been getting a fair bit of attention. This past spring Time magazine included Calvinism in its list of ten ideas changing the world. A Washington Post column called Calvin "the man most responsible for our American system of liberty based on Republican principles of representative government."

These kinds of observations are not that new. A century ago, Max Weber credited the rise of capitalism to Calvin's influence and ideas. Churches that identify with Calvin's theology can be found in virtually every country in the world, and commemorative conferences, publications and memorabilia abound.

I was privileged to be among hundreds of Calvinists from around the world who gathered in Geneva last week for a series of scholarly papers delivered at Calvin's academy and expository sermons preached from Calvin's pulpit at St. Pierre Cathedral. These services were appropriately reverent, with psalms sung with the historic Genevan tunes echoing from the sanctuary into the courtyard, even as the mood throughout remained festive and celebratory. The quip of one participant seemed simultaneously oxymoronic and apt: "This is the Calvinist Woodstock."

Geneva itself seemed a little less enthused. One of the churches posted period cartoons highlighting prevalent caricatures of Calvin. The city of Geneva, while clearly taking advantage of the tourist opportunity that Calvin's birthday provides, advertised a city-promoted production as "a caustic look at Calvin" and assuring the audience that "the show is not redemptive towards Calvin." Director Francois Rochaix noted that Genevans "blame (Calvin) for all the shortcomings of the Geneva people, but abroad he's perceived differently. Apart from his image of being merciless and strict, he was one of the most important people who helped create a bridge from the Renaissance to modern times." Calvin's negative local press was confirmed by the fact that not one of the half dozen restaurant servers I asked—all within walking distance of the cathedral in Geneva's tourist district—could tell me anything about the celebrations.

Maybe Calvin would have preferred it that way. Geneva was intended as just a stopover for Calvin, but he was convinced to stay and help out his friend Guillaume (William) Farel in 1536. After just two years of ministry, Calvin was driven out of the city to Strasbourg and only reluctantly came back when begged to do so in 1541. He actually did not become a Genevan citizen until 1559, a mere five years before his death.

While accounts of his supposedly difficult personality, authoritarian tendencies and general unlikeableness are widespread, critics and admirers do agree that Calvin was a brilliant man and that his legacy is profound and far-reaching. Dr. William McComish, the Dean Emeritus of the St. Pierre Cathedral in Geneva, certainly belongs in the admirers' camp, and when considered together with the many historical assessments of Calvin's influence, his claim is not as hyperbolic as it sounds: "If it were not for Calvin and his successors, the modern world would be a much more primitive and barbarous place."

So what should twenty-first century sophisticates make of the Genevan reformer? Is the quintcentennary of his birth a reason for a party? And if the party were held, would Calvin, if he were able to, attend the party?

By any measure, Calvin was an impressive individual. Legally trained in France as a humanist, he converted to Protestantism in 1533. Not much is known about his conversion; the only direct reference he makes to it is in the preface to the Commentary on the Book of Psalms: "God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened in such matters than might have been expected from one at my early period of life." In 1534 he fled Paris for Basel in the face of religious persecution and it was in Basel that he wrote the first edition of his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion. Shortly thereafter he stopped in Geneva en route to Strasbourg when Farel persuaded him to stay and help with the growing needs of the Protestant church there. In 1538, Farel and Calvin were expelled from Geneva by the city council to Strasbourg, where by all accounts, he had a much more pleasant existence. He became a Strasbourg citizen, wrote extensively, and married a 30-year-old, educated, and by contemporary accounts, pretty widow with two children, Idellette de Bure. He was asked to return to Geneva in 1541 and after a time of convincing, returned there, where he lived until his death in 1564.

Although Calvin adopted and ended up providing for the two children of Idellette de Bure after her death in 1549, together they had only one child, Jean, who died as an infant. Hence Calvin had no biological heirs. When during the polemical debates of the period a Roman Catholic priest noted that Calvin had no children, in an attempt to discredit him, Calvin responded that he had "thousands and thousands of children." After five hundred years, the numbers are now measured in millions.

These children do not all speak of Calvin in harmonious tones, but that too should be viewed as part of his legacy. In contrast to the authoritarian caricature, the evidence is overwhelming that Calvin was opposed to authoritarianism. The political system he advocated was a mix of "aristocracy tempered by democracy." Some argue that the reason there is so much dissonant opinion in Protestantism is because of the freedom of speech and plural structures of social authority that are implicit in Calvin's teachings. While holding to a high view of office (in the church, and in government), Calvin's system is filled with checks and balances such that wisdom comes from a multitude of counselors.

Admittedly, some of the Calvinist celebrations in Geneva this year included an adulation of a man's accomplishments by which Calvin may well have been repulsed. In his sermon, closing the conference, Dr. Derek Thomas noted how, throughout the conference, he half-expected the ghost of John Calvin to come walking down the cathedral aisle and wag his famous finger at the audience, declaring "Non!" at these celebrations.

I did participate in the celebrations and I recognize that to some, it may have seemed like Calvinists were returning to, rather than rejecting, ideas of pilgrimage (with several hundred making the journey and taking tours of the Genevan sites), relics (there was real excitement in the conference group when on one of the excursions an actual 1609 Genevan Bible was one of the attractions) and the magisterium (with the speakers and preachers list consisting, in the words of one organizer, "the all-star team" of contemporary Calvinists.) Even after an intense week of interacting with the legacy of Calvin on his "home turf," it is hard to really get a sense of his personality, but I am reasonably confident that I could have persuaded him to join the party.

How? Calvin was a lawyer, so I would have had to present a persuasive case, but there are at least five arguments—one negative and four positive—that I would have made.

First, the negative. Calvin's objection to having his grave marked and receiving much attention was that he feared that he might be sainted, as was commonplace in his day within the Roman Catholic Church. I think there is plenty of evidence that I could provide him, not only from his foes, but even among his so-called friends in twenty-first century Protestantism, that would convince him that his fear of being sainted is hardly a real risk. While some individual enthusiasts may go to excess, their excess fervour can be explained by means of the doctrine of total depravity. When measured in a larger scale, celebrating Calvin's legacy is a necessary part of promoting the truths that Calvin held dear, and for him to avoid it out of modesty would be to abdicate the cause and do disservice to the truths he sought so dearly to promote.

Secondly, I would suggest to him that the doctrine of providence required him to acknowledge what had happened in the 500 years since his birth. Objectively, the influence of his ideas has had a widespread reach. According to the doctrine of providence which Calvin taught, this is hardly an accident, but instead the gracious work of a God who upholds and sustains his creation, and to deny this is to deny God the glory due his name.

I would then, thirdly, appeal to Calvin's desire for the unity of the church. Yes, we must admit that Calvinists in our day are divided among many denominations. Old Calvinists and New Calvinists; neopuritans, Barthians, Calvinistic Baptists, soteriological Calvinists, cosmological Calvinists—the sad quip about three Presbyterians having five opinions is all too true. Yet, this celebration included many parts of the Calvinist family, and at the conclusion of the festivities we were able to pray in unison Calvin's prayer "that we may not continue torn asunder, every one pursuing his own perverse inclinations … (but) may we then add to the true and lawful worship of thy name brotherly love toward one another."

If Calvin were still not convinced, I would urge him to at least slip in the back door of the cathedral and listen for a moment to the worship that was taking place each evening. Not only were psalms sung (along with hymns, but I would time his entrance so he heard the Genevan tunes first), but there was also communal confession of sin, a pastoral prayer and the recitation of the creed, and the mainstay of the service was the expository preaching of the word. Calvin was convinced that the preaching of the Word was the key to the growth of the church and expansion of the kingdom. He preached twice on the Lord's Day and every second week on each weekday, working his way consecutively through the Scriptures. This can't quite be matched in five days, but I am quite confident that Calvin would have find himself quite edified listening to the fifteen sermons that were part of this conference.

Finally, I would make the point to Calvin, as so many speakers did throughout the celebration, that at the end of the day, it isn't about either John Calvin or the people who gathered to remember his legacy. Calvinists can only properly bow before the majesty of God and celebrate not the praise of John Calvin, but the praise of John Calvin's God. For those outside of the Calvinist tradition that may seem a difficult matter, recognizing that Calvin's God is the God of the "horrible decree," the doctrine of election. Calvin would have agreed with Rev. Geoffrey Thomas, who in his conference sermon "In Praise of Election," noted that in Calvin's doctrine—which he suggested was the Scriptural doctrine—of election, we have the throne on which God reigns, the heart of divine omnipotence, which, when we peel back the layers, we find to be a heart of love. "We cannot speak of God without speaking of him being in love with his people." God's love for his people results in his people living for his glory.

I think that were Calvin to hear these arguments, he would agree to join the celebration. Undoubtedly, it would be a "Woodstock" of a different character, and although the preaching and worship would be churchly, the impacts would be in every area of life—not just organized religion, but eating, drinking, doing art, politics, law and every part of life to God's honour and glory.

Happy birthday John Calvin!Soli deo Gloria.

Note, this article was written at the end of a conference commemorating Calvin, and the ideas presented are not original to the author but in fact an amalgam of thoughts presented throughout the week. Conscious of the biblical commandment against stealing and the fact that Calvin's ideas gave rise to the concept of intellectual property, I wish to acknowledge those whose talks give rise to these reflections and do not wish to receive credit for that which is not my own.

Monarchical Manoueverings

2010-07-08T10:06:00.002-06:00

Waterloo University President David Johnston has been announced this morning as Canada's next Governor General. Mr. Johnston's legal background as well as perceived non-partisan perspective (he has worked with both Conservative and Liberal government and served as the moderator of the 1984 federal debate, among his other distinctions) seems to be have him generally being received as a wise choice. (Of course, that does not stop some from panning him as "the worst GG choice of all-time" but a quick scan of liblogs.ca and progressivebloggers.ca would seem that Mr. Johnston has crediblity across the political spectrum, an important attribute given the potentially significant decisions the Governor-General may need to make in our seemingly perpetual minority governhment context.

All of which raises an interesting scenario playing out in the Netherlands presently. It would seem that the Dutch Queen is actively maneuvering to see a coalition government formed in the Netherlands that would not include Freedom Party of Geert Wilders. Although the role of the monarchy is more robust in European countries like the Netherlands where there is a process of negotiating coalitions after elections and requiring monarchical approval of a coalition deal in order to form a government, it will be most interesting to watch the reaction of the Dutch public to a perception of monarchical influence in the actual content and formation of the coalition deal.

Although the Queen's visit to Canada certainly highlighted the value many Canadians hold for the monarchy, it will be interesting to watch how the role of the monarchy will evolve over the next period of time.

Some perspective on Thinktanks...

2010-07-07T09:15:00.002-06:00

A Monday piece in the British Guardian highlights the continuing importance and influence of thinktanks in the British context. In Canada, our thinktank culture is much younger and still developing, but I think we are on the cusp of some important and fundamental shifts relating to the direction of society, particuarly as it relates to the role of government and other institutions in society as well as the role of faith in a pluralistic context.

Yet we need thinktanks. As politics has become less tribal, so ideas have become more important. There have been three important ideological shifts at the centre of British politics in the last half century: the Conservatives' break with the Keynesian welfare state under Thatcher; Labour's move to the new centre ground under Blair, and Cameron's apparent distancing of the Conservatives from free-market individualism under Cameron. If truth be told, much of the thinking that generated these shifts emerged out of small, informal circles formed around the party leader. But thinktanks played an important role too.

Tanks are quintessentially institutions of increasingly centreless, networked society. They provide a space between government, universities, the third sector and journalism, where experts and leaders from different backgrounds and disciplines can develop, discuss and test values, ideas and strategies. Political parties themselves certainly don't provide these spaces, and neither do, with a few exceptions, political institutions or universities.

Self-Control an Exhaustible Resource

2010-07-06T06:41:00.003-06:00

Dan Heath at Fast Company provides some fascinating insights regarding the nature of self-control. (h/t David Murray.)

So picture this: Students come into a lab. It smells amazing—someone has just baked chocolate-chip cookies. On a table in front of them, there are two bowls. One has the fresh-baked cookies. The other has a bunch of radishes. Some of the students are asked to eat some cookies but no radishes. Others are told to eat radishes but no cookies, and while they sit there, nibbling on rabbit food, the researchers leave the room – which is intended to tempt them and is frankly kind of sadistic. But in the study none of the radish-eaters slipped – they showed admirable self-control. And meanwhile, it probably goes without saying that the people gorging on cookies didn’t experience much temptation.

Then, the two groups are asked to do a second, seemingly unrelated task—basically a kind of logic puzzle where they have to trace out a complicated geometric pattern without raising their pencil. Unbeknownst to them, the puzzle can’t be solved. The scientists are curious how long they’ll persist at a difficult task. So the cookie-eaters try again and again, for an average of 19 minutes, before they give up. But the radish-eaters—they only last an average of 8 minutes. What gives?

The answer may surprise you: They ran out of self-control. Psychologists have discovered that self-control is an exhaustible resource. And I don’t mean self-control only in the sense of turning down cookies or alcohol, I mean a broader sense of self-supervision—any time you’re paying close attention to your actions, like when you’re having a tough conversation or trying to stay focused on a paper you’re writing. This helps to explain why, after a long hard day at the office, we’re more likely to snap at our spouses or have one drink too many—we’ve depleted our self-control.

And here’s why this matters for change: In almost all change situations, you’re substituting new, unfamiliar behaviors for old, comfortable ones, and that burns self-control. Let’s say I present a new morning routine to you that specifies how you’ll shower and brush your teeth. You’ll understand it and you might even agree with my process. But to pull it off, you’ll have to supervise yourself very carefully. Every fiber of your being will want to go back to the old way of doing things. Inevitably, you’ll slip. And if I were uncharitable, I’d see you going back to the old way and I’d say, You’re so lazy. Why can’t you just change?

This brings us back to the point I promised I’d make: That what looks like laziness is often exhaustion. Change wears people out—even well-intentioned people will simply run out of fuel.

Lots of implications for our personal, spiritual, and organizational lives....

Common Sense From Blatchford

2010-07-03T11:04:00.002-06:00

Christie Blatchford's Globe column provides a number of observations on the G20 protests and their aftermath that resonate with some of my own musings on the matter this week.

A few excerpts....

(J)ournalism is not merely a collective of the self-anointed.

For all that it may not be a regulated profession, neither is it just a coming together of people with cellphones, video cameras and blogs as receptacle for an apparently endless stream of unfiltered, unedited consciousness.

In other words, just as you are not a physician or a lawyer merely because you say you are, much as you may want to believe it so, neither are you a journalist because you and your friends say you are or because your “writings” appear on a website.

(S)ince with the wisdom of hindsight it is now apparent that everyone knew that the anarchists/Black Bloc types would try to wreak havoc on the city, why are the organizers of the legitimate protests not being questioned about their accountability? They too presumably knew – as did police and security forces – that their peaceful demonstrations likely would be disrupted; what steps did they take to stop such a hijacking?

...Finally, how amusing it is to see Toronto, press and public alike, whip themselves into a frenzy of outrage over alleged police inaction and then alleged police overreaction, when all of this, in terms even more stark, happened in Caledonia, Ont., from 2006 onwards, and no one gave a fig.

Well-said.

Debating the Place of Religion and Secularism

2010-07-02T10:00:00.003-06:00

Last week, Justin Trottier, National Executive Director of the Centre for Inquiry, an organization dedicated to humanist values, responded to my piece published in the Globe which argued that modern secularism is a failed experiment that not only was blind to its own intolerant ways, but also was not cultivating the necessary "civic oxygen" required for the continued prosperity of society. Trottier raised several arguments against my "egregious contribution," the primary ones being that religion is inherently divisive and that the altruism of religious persons is in fact self-serving promotion of religion.

I have responded to Trottier in a piece published on the National Post website today.

Religion not the only source of division
Comments Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Digg Reddit Buzz Email
Special to the National Post July 2, 2010 – 7:46 am

By RAY PENNINGS

Having been singled out in a recent Holy Post blog by Justin Trottier, it is only appropriate to provide a response. It would be easy, even tempting given the girth of the rhetorical pitches he has thrown, to swing for the fences. I choose instead to offer the other cheek.

Mr. Trottier and I agree that religion can be, has been, is and will likely continue to be a subject of division between people. Where we disagree is in understanding that it is just one of many tools used by human beings over the course of history to assert their desire to dominate. Other causes similarly abused to cause strife include differing views on trade, economic systems, ideology, pride, social justice, freedom, secularism, culture, language, etc. Honduras and El Salvador have gone to war over a World Cup qualifying match and the Trojan wars were caused by a dispute over a woman – Helen of Sparta, or Troy. None of this, of course, is reason to build barriers to prevent the participation of economics, ideology, women, football, freedom or social justice within the public square.

That cleared up, my argument is not religious. It is sociological and based, not on faith, but on reason and empirical data collected by agencies such as Statistics Canada. Theists punch far above their weight when it comes to contributing to charities both financially and in terms of volunteer hours. Why or if this will forever be the case may be debated. That it is currently the case is not debatable. According to the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and Statistics Canada, the 32 per cent of Canadians who are active in their belief make 65 per cent of the nation’s direct charitable donations. Mr. Trottier may believe as he says that this is because they are funding purely evangelical causes such as, one presumes, the construction of clean water filters in African villages or the feeding and housing of the hungry and homeless at institutions such as Inn From the Cold, Mustard Seed and the Salvation Army, but the truth in this area remains inconvenient to his argument. Even in the purely secular donations sector, that same 32 per cent of believers donates 42 per cent of the $2.1 billion raised annually. Trottier and others need to consider whether their belief system is blinding them to the reality of empirical data.

All of this would be neither here nor there if it not for the fact that this 32 per cent – the civic core of Canada’s “giving” sector – is declining by 1 to 2 per cent annually. As it declines, and assuming the trend continues, only one outcome can be reasonably assumed – that financial support for Canada’s charitable institutions will decline along with it. Assuming that the need for services such as food and housing – offered both by secular and faith-based institutions – is unlikely to disappear, only two outcomes are possible. One is that the needs of the hungry and homeless will not be met; the other is that the burden of their care will shift to the state. One has then to simply ask the very rational question of whether it is more efficient for society to have these needs met by a $30,000-a-year Salvation Army soldier with a degree in social work or an $80,000 a year government employee with a degree in social work. This is to say nothing of the other enormous contributions made by the physical infrastructures of theist institutions to the social infrastructures of society such as the use of their facilities as day cares, seniors’ centres, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, etc.

I do not deny that people who share a non-theist belief system contribute. They are responsible for 35 per cent of Canada’s total contributions, after all. So far, however, there is insufficient data to inspire confidence that as the theist-active “civic core” described above declines, a new “civic core” with a non-theistic moral code will emerge to pick up the slack.

As Partis Quebecois leader Bernard Landry who as Premier of Quebec led one of western society’s most vigorously non-theist societies was quoted as saying in Brian Lee Crowley’s Fearful Symmetry:

“The revolution (of the 1960s) changed so many things in such a short period. We made a break with Catholic morality and have been trying to build an ethical and moral code that is not linked to religion . . . and we haven’t found a good way to do that.”

The rational approach in a truly open society tolerant of Mr. Trottier’s beliefs and mine is to ensure the physical and intellectual contributions to the charitable needs of society is recognized and supported by public policy. The people served do not deserve to be the collateral damage of an intellectual assault on the people who serve them.

Ray Pennings is Senior Fellow and Director of Research at Cardus

Canada's Nosus Decipio

2010-07-01T05:00:00.002-06:00

My favourite part of the movie, Amazing Grace, which tells the story of William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade, is when Lord Tarleton is unable to rally his votes against Wilberforce and company because Tarleton's allies had been given tickets to the horse races courtesy of Wilberforce. The plan, we are told, involves nosus decipio, loosely translated as "we cheat."

On Canada's 143rd birthday, which for the past 28 years has been known as Canada Day but prior to that as Dominion Day, it seems appropriate to highlight our own nosus decipio moment in Parliament on July 9, 1982. Hats off to Greg Felton in yesterday's Montreal Gazette for retelling the story.

At 4 p.m. on a Friday - July 9, 1982 -the House of Commons met with only one item on the agenda: Bill C-201, a private member's bill to change the name of the July 1 holiday from "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day."

About a dozen of the 282 members the House showed up for work, which presented a procedural problem: A quorum of at least 20 members is required to conduct business, so, officially, no bills could be passed. Nevertheless, Bill C-201 was given second and third reading. At 4:05 p.m., our hard-working representatives called it a day.

What transpired in those five minutes 28 years ago was a contempt of Parliament, but few MPs cared. When the error was brought to the attention of Speaker Jeanne Sauve the following Monday, she said no procedural rules had been broken because nobody had called for a quorum count. A quorum was deemed to exist, thus making the actions of the House lawful.

Leaving aside this feeble technicality, opposition members objected that they were not properly forewarned of the bill's second reading. "Today (July 12) I received notice advising that Bill C-201 ... wouldn't be before the House during private members' hour on Friday last, July 9," said Alberta Tory MP Gordon Taylor. "The notice said the second reading would be resumed, but the notice has not yet been posted on the members' bulletin board."

Yvon Pinard, president of the Privy Council, claimed that the list of bills to be debated was distributed to opposition parties on July 8, but what he then said was telling: "We [the government] had hoped the bill would be passed during one of our very late nights, but unfortunately members present at the time were not yet mature enough; now a few days later, it seems a miracle has happened and we have the results at last."

Translation: "We wanted to ram this change through without a fuss, but didn't get away with it the first time, so we cheated."

Thanks to this "miraculous act of maturity," Canadians now celebrate a vapid contrivance instead of a historically meaningful event.

July 1 is supposed to commemorate the day in 1867 when New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Province of Canada formed "One Dominion under the name of Canada," as described in the British North America Act.

In fact, the idea of a dominion was a uniquely Canadian achievement.

The term came from New Brunswick Senator Samuel Leonard Tilley, who took it from the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the rivers unto the ends of the Earth."

"Dominion Day" became the official name of our national holiday after B.C. Senator Robert William Weir Carrall presented a bill to Parliament in 1879. In his 1926 report, Lord Balfour declared Canada (as well as other Commonwealth nations) to be self-governing dominions within the British Empire constitutionally equal to each other in all respects, and united in common allegiance to the crown.

The Balfour Report led directly to the Dec. 11, 1931, Statute of Westminster, by which Britain invested Canada and other dominions with full legal freedom.

Beyond the religious connotation, "Dominion Day" embodies the essence of Canadian nationhood, and is associated with nation-building events. It was as the Dominion of Canada that this country came of age and fought in the Boer War and two world wars.

Those who deprecate "Dominion Day" claim that the term connotes colonialism and dependency, even though the opposite is true. Others are uncomfortable with the biblical origin of the term.

....Taylor described the proceedings of July 9, 1982, as "sneaky, sloppy and arrogant." What self-respecting Canadian could argue?

Happy Dominion Day!

Cities and Churches

2010-06-30T09:09:00.002-06:00

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada just released an interesting report that outlines some basics regarding religious freedom of faith groups in Canada and how that relates to municipal government, particularly in connection with zoning issues. The news release and complete report is downloadable from their website.

This issue has been in the news in a few places of late. The Edmonton Journal ran a piece in April which highlighted how various towns are reexamining the property tax exemptions given to churches. After a six years of controversy in Brampton, Ontario on this matter, the City Council recently adopted a "one-of-a-kind" policy designed to provide more flexibility for faith-based groups.

Although zoning bylaws and municipal governance is the current front-line in which these issues are being discussed, there is a more substantial discussion going on regarding both our understanding of religion and charity. Legally, Canada still relies on a 1601 definition of charity which focuses on the relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes considered beneficial to the community as charitable causes. Many question the continued validity of this definition, viewing religion as a private rather than a public matter. There are many dimensions to this discussion which is sure to continue to perculate in various ways over the years to come, the receiving of zoning permission to use a particular building for religious purposes being just one example of where the rubber hits the road.

I would be remiss in not directing any readers not familiar with Cardus' ongoing work in the area of "Stained Glass Urbanism" to our website and series of studies and publications on this subject.

2010-06-25T10:14:00.002-06:00

In April I highlighted an exchange between Andy Crouch and James Davison Hunter on the pages of Christianity Today. In an essay published in today's on-line Comment, I provide some reflections on this ongoing discussion and the challenges facing Christians interested in public engagement. A few excerpts....

Hunter explicitly challenges the approaches of Colson and Crouch. The predominant evangelism, politics, and social reform strategies practiced by Christians today are "fundamentally flawed" and do not live up to their "world-changing" promise. Instead, Hunter argues, we need to work from a more complex culture paradigm. It is not the truth of an idea which makes it influential in a culture-changing way, but rather "the way (ideas) are embedded in very powerful institutions, networks, interests, and symbols." Christian witness in our time has been compromised because we mistakenly have thought that changed individuals will change culture, when in fact it is "cultures that ultimately shape the hearts and minds and, thus, direct the lives of individuals." That being said, Christians have mistakenly made culture-change an end when at best, it should be a secondary consequence of our faithful presence in the culture in which we find ourselves....

The debate is insightful, as it puts the spotlight on different dimensions of the complex process that is cultural engagement which taking any of these works on their own might overlook. However, even after the 1200 combined pages and ongoing discussion, the entire terrain still has not been mapped. With a few exceptions, the debate has focused on the theological, political, and aesthetic spheres without adequate accounting for the economic. Institutions are often presented as normative givens, even though the structures are changing as the debate is taking place; sorting out what is normative and what can be thrown away is a day-to-day challenge to which not enough attention is given. And while the concepts of power, authority, and responsibility are regularly tossed around, developing a more common understanding of their roots would be helpful....

Colson, Crouch, and Hunter provide insights regarding how to apply our calling to live faithfully. None is entirely right neither any entirely wrong. In a cultural context in which Christians are being challenged to conform to a "no-truth" paradigm, living culturally-engaged lives which by our daily postures and practices proclaim that we bow the knee to God's truth is, in itself, a form of witness. Wisely choosing the tactics and approach requires a discerning wisdom and humble graciousness, ready to listen and learn from others. There are no formulaic answers. The existence of paradoxes of kingdom life in a fallen world is in itself a daily reminder of our own finitude and the limitations of our influence in the context of God's eternal plans, even for those who have achieved elite status in the central institutions of power.

We need not answer, but embrace the paradox. The result will be a posture of humble confession, prayerful dependence, and thankful living. It will also continue to seek to understand the world in which we live, recognizing that wise and stewardly strategies are more God-honouring than foolish and self-serving ones. But at the end of the day, it isn't about changing the world, for the Christian knows that work already has been done.

The Importance of the Church

2010-06-24T08:57:00.003-06:00

Tim Challies has a very thoughtful entry regarding the importance of maintaining a proper view of the church.

Many people are proud to be believers, yet are ashamed to be part of the church, the visible body of Christ. They portray the church as being purposeless, intellectual and ancient, knowingly and joyfully trapped in the past, snickering as we watch our neighbors fall into the abyss....And I think this is how the church often sees itself—it sees the bad and loses track of all the great things that the church has accomplished through Christ and for the glory of God. It sees in the church the image of sinful humanity but loses sight of the fact that the church is the beautiful bride of Christ.

It is easy, especially for those of us active in church leadership and having to deal with her imperfections on a daily basis, to become cynical or lose a biblical perspective. I fear we are often guilty of having too small thoughts of God and what He will accomplish through His church -- worldwide through history but also locally in time, in other words, the local church of which I am a member. That should not blind us to the real problems that we have to struggle through but it should encourage us to be diligent and faithful, even when the immediate results are not always as encouraging as we wish they were.

While this is a message for those in the church, it has public implications that should not be overlooked. In my recent Parliament Hill lecture, I reflected how the church herself is complicit in our present lack of public influence. Part of this comes from a failure to communicate, but also understand herself, what she really is.

We have catered to a religious consumerism, whereby we served up what our congregants were looking for as we competed with other churches for our share of the religious market, often at the expense of our prophetic witness. We have raised the walls and tried to hide our dirty laundry, arguing that what was happening within the church was a matter of private concern. Instead of admitting that it should be no surprise that the church has to deal with adulterers, tax evaders, and sex abusers – the gospel is for sinners after all—we have tried to hide the facts and protect our image. The church should be known for how she deals with these matters, in a way that shows how mercy and justice come together. Those outside of the church should be able to look at the church as an example of an institution that deals with difficult matters in a way that deserves emulation.

Lest the forgoing be misinterpreted, I am not indicting the entire Christian church as if there are no examples which deserve emulation. There are clearly lots of good and wonderful stories. My point is simply this: the Christian church in Canada broadly understood needs to understand that the role of the church is not that of a private institution serving her members but that of a public witness, a light set on a hill, which provides a witness not only through the gospel she preaches, but how she conducts her affairs.

When our self-understanding as well as our public communication flows from the truth that we are the bride of Christ, bought with a price and made a perfect bride not through our own activities but through His perfect and complete work, we will be equipped to winsomely engage the culture and freely communicate the riches of the gospel from the overflowing abundance that is to be found in Him.

Meechaversary

2010-06-23T09:31:00.002-06:00

Twenty years ago today, the Meech Lake Accord died its official death. Chantal Hebert in her Star column today suggests at least three significant consequences of that event: the wane of Brian Mulroney's government and influence; the rise of Lucien Bouchard and the Bloc Quebecois as a force in Canadian politics; and the "pav(ing) the way for an unlikely Alberta policy wonk called Stephen Harper to go from founding member of a right-wing regional party — borne out of the backlash over Mulroney’s approach to Quebec — to Canada’s 22nd prime minister."

In the Globe, Andrew Cohen offers quite a different take on the failure of Meech. Noting that in spite of the protestations of the political class that passing Meech was essential to the continuance of Canada, twenty years have passed without the breakup of the country and " Independence is as likely for Quebec as winning the Stanley Cup is for the Toronto Maple Leafs." (ouch, but true says this Leaf fan.) For Cohen, Meech "taught us that constitutions could no longer be made in secret." Had it passed, " the Parti Québécois would have used the distinct society to claim significant powers for Quebec in social policy. For sovereigntists, it was win-win either way. Had they succeeded, they would have moved Quebec toward de facto sovereignty; had they failed, they would have said Meech Lake was a lie."

Retroactive "what-ifs" and "if-onlys" make for interesting op-eds but their primary value is to remind us of a proverb that was already popular in the fifteenth century: "You can't see the forest because of the trees." Forseeing the consequences of the passage or failure of Meech twenty years ago was even more impossible then than it is today, as it is with so many of our political challenges. The unfolding of history is something that is complex and involves many factors, most of which are unseen and unpredictable, and while that does not diminish the importance of the questions as we face them, it does remind us to have a humility about the importance of our immediate challenges. It is always tempting to over-inflate the consequences of our immediate actions, and to see the answer to the immediate question, as either providing either the key to unmitigated success or a recipe for failure. In most cases, including that of Meech twenty years ago, it was somewhere in the mushy middle.

Gideon Strauss in CT

2010-06-22T11:05:00.002-06:00

My good friend and long-time colleague Gideon Strauss was profiled in the June issue of Christianity Today. I just notice that the profile is now on-line.

Q. Define justice. How does it differ from public justice and social justice?
In the biggest sense, justice is when all God's creatures receive what is due them and contribute out of their uniqueness to our common existence. We are called to do justice in every sphere of our lives: how I love and educate my daughters, collaborate with my colleagues, interact with neighbors. Public justice is the political aspect—the work of citizens and political office bearers shaping a public life for the common good. Social justice is the civil society counterpart—nonpolitical organizations that promote justice.

Education and Religion in Quebec

2010-06-22T08:36:00.003-06:00

In today's National Post, Graeme Hamilton has a helpful piece summarizing Friday's Quebec court decision in favour of parental rights in the context of a policy that forces all Quebec students to take a government-written religion and ethics course. The Quebec government announced yesterday it is appealing this decision.

The course, Ethics and Religious Culture, is mandatory for all children in Grades 1 though 11. Its introduction followed a 1997 constitutional amendment replacing the province’s denominational school boards with linguistic ones and a 2005 law that removed parents’ right to choose a course in Catholic, Protestant or moral instruction.

The course covers the full spectrum of world religions and belief systems, with an emphasis on Christianity, Judaism and aboriginal spirituality. Critics have said it promotes a moral relativism, in which all belief systems are of equal value. In its pleadings before the court, Loyola argued that this relativism trivializes the religious experience promoted in all facets of the school’s teachings....

Last year in a different case, a Quebec court rejected a more general appeal from parents. In that case, it was argued that whereas prior to this legislation, students had to take one of three religion and ethics courses (one written from a Protestant, another from a Catholic, and the third from a religously-neutral moral perspective), they now had were being forced to take the one government-approved course. The court rejected that argument.

I have not had a chance to carefully read the details, but on its face, it seems that the decisions taken together amount to allowing schools with a particular ethocs to teach in a manner consistent with that ethos, while students in public schools are being forced to take the government-approved curriculum. Given that the matter is being appealed and that there are, I understand, further legal actions still in the work on this touchy subject, the final word has not been written but it is a subject worth following with care.

PS. I just came an interesting press release issued last week by Loyola school regarding this matter. An excerpt of note:

On June 18, 2010, the Superior Court rendered its judgment and concluded that the decision to refuse our request was invalid because it assumed that a confessional program could not achieve the goals proposed by the ministry program.

As it was clearly stated by philosopher Georges Leroux, advocate of the ministerial program, who testified as the government's expert at trial, there is no reason to think that Loyola's Jesuit pedagogy cannot accomplish the goals of recognition of others and the pursuit of the common good.

Therefore, the Superior Court acknowledged that while it is in the government's purview to mandate a program that deals with this subject matter, it is not its place to exclude all other forms of achieving the same goals.

"We have always acknowledged the government's central role in seeking the common good and have desired to work with it in order to find constructive ways for confessional groups to work alongside all men and women of goodwill to build a better society for all. We have always understood our role in this matter as contributing to a public discussion on the role of confessional institutions in an increasingly secular society" comments Paul Donovan, Principal of Loyola High School.

In Praise of Apple and IPAD

2010-06-21T12:12:00.002-06:00

To date I have been a PC man, not so much by choice as most of my computer choices have been determined by the more computer-savvy colleagues I have worked with. On the weekend, I had the chance to try out an IPAD belonging to someone else and had to admit it was pretty cool, and that the on-screen type - pad even worked quite well producing almost error-less typing for me on my first try.

However, that amounts to little more than gadget-happy covetousness that guys my age are vulnerable to. (For reference, the "my age" above refers to those young enough to have used computers all of our working life, but old enough to have filled in computer cards in high school and remember the first personal computer with external tape drives and 5 1/4 inch floppies.)

However, I just read a Boston Globe column by Jennifer Marshall (with whom I was privileged to be a co-panelist a few months back)detailing an email exchange in which Apple explains why it is not allowing porn apps for the IPAD.

That’s why it is encouraging to see corporate leaders exercising moral intuition about the cultural space they’re creating in a product such as the iPad. Because one of the iPad’s signature features, Safari, provides access to the Internet, the vast content includes porn sites and still presents challenges for parents.

It’s a different story when it comes to Apple’s app domain, though.

As Jobs explained in his e-mail exchange: “(It’s) about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users. . . . (We’re) just doing what we can to try and make (and preserve) the user experience we envision. You can disagree with us, but our motives are pure.”

According to his blogging critic, that’s Jobs imposing his morality on the rest of the world.

But, as the Apple CEO correctly points out, there’s a difference between censorship and corporate stewardship: “Users, developers and publishers can do whatever they like - they don’t have to buy or develop or publish on iPads if they don’t want to.”

The reality is that communication of any sort gives all of us an opportunity to express our morality. Technological advances exponentially expand our freedom to impress that morality on the world around us.

With that freedom comes responsibility.

And by putting boundaries on what providers can offer on its app platform, Apple does a service to parents struggling to keep up with today’s innovations, get ready for tomorrow’s and shape their children’s moral intuition for a lifetime.

Makes me want to go out and get an IPAD. Afraid I need to do some colleague convincing before that will turn into reality, and when it comes to arguing about the virtues and vices of computer technology, I am rarely the one in the room who has the most-informed arguments. However, that does't stop me from putting out a public shout-out of support for Apple's taking a stand on this one.

C2C on Slavery

2010-06-21T08:26:00.003-06:00

The Canadian on-line journal C2C has just published a special issue on modern slavery which I recommend for your review. Lest you think this issue is one that only for historians to study, a brief excerpt regarding the current Canadian challenge.

Canada’s Human Trafficking Connection

Human trafficking is a problem that affects countries around the world. It is emerging as a significant concern in Canada as awareness is increasing about the existence of this serious crime and affront to individual liberty.

In 2004, the RCMP Criminal Intelligence Directorate estimated that 800 foreign nationals are brought to Canada every year to become human trafficking victims, 600 of whom are subject to sexual exploitation. A further 1,500 to 2,200 persons are believed to be transported through Canada annually into the United States. However, only a small fraction of these estimated victims have been identified by authorities. Today, the RCMP no longer relies on these outdated estimates. Instead, the national police force has recently completed a “threat assessment” on human trafficking that is expected to be released in the imminent future.

Although many victims of human trafficking in Canada are recruited from overseas, there are also many domestic, Canadian-born victims. Underage Canadian girls as young as 12 years old are also being subjected to sexual exploitation by traffickers across the country, according to the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada’s strategic intelligence brief entitled Organized Crime and Domestic Trafficking in Persons in Canada.

Domestic trafficking occurs inter- and intra-provincially and is largely facilitated by organized criminal groups. Canadian-born females are typically recruited from lower- to middle-class families by male peers, either through threats of violence to them or their families or through the promise of affection. Trafficking and recruitment of victims occurs in both large urban centres and smaller areas. Victims are often moved inter- or intra-provincially for various reasons. The reasons include: a demand for “new faces”, i.e. newer sexual prey for those who would abuse them; to isolate victims from their previous social networks; and to impede law enforcement. More recently there has also been increasing awareness of Canadian-born victims brought to the US.

I have previously mentioned my enthusiasm and support for the work of International Justice Mission. If you are not familiar with them, check them out.

Manning on Faith in Public Life

2010-06-17T05:46:00.002-06:00

Thanks to Nationalnewswatch, I notice that Preston Manning gave a speech yesterday at the University of Prince Edward Island on the subject of faith in public life. A few excerpts...

There are a number of reasons for this, including pressure from party whips and officials for politicians to stay on message, the idea to appeal to the separation of church and state and to remain neutral in a multicultural society like Canada....

“In the long run, it is not possible to keep faith and politics in separate watertight compartments, not in a free and democratic society.”
The responsibility to make this change does not fall on those who feel the need to restrict faith discussions in political settings, Manning said.
“The initiative for legitimating the discussion of faith in the political arena has to come from those of us who believe and have faith.”

Review of Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor

2010-06-15T23:03:00.002-06:00

Today the spring edition of Cardus Policy in Public (CPIP) was released on-line (available for free download on the Cardus website) and it included two articles I have written: an adaptation of my remarks from the God and Global Economy conference held at Regent in April entitled "International Labour Unions: What's It all for?" and a promised book review of Marci McDonald's recent book. I republish that review here for your convenience.

Marci McDonald. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada. (Toronto: Random House, 2010), 417 pp. including endnotes and index.

Marci McDonald is promoted as a “one of Canada’s most respected journalists” and her book as a “comprehensive look” at Christian nationalism in Canada, a movement with political influence “out of all proportion to its popular support.” Random House is a mainstream publisher, thirty-five pages of source notes are included to back up the text. It is clear that for anyone with more than a passing interest in the intersection of faith and politics in Canada, this is required reading.
But I do not recall ever reading a book that got so much wrong. Mistaking someone’s title may seem a picayune error but when the dustcover advertises how a militant band covertly has “a direct pipeline” to the Prime Minister actively reshaping the nations’ politics, it does matter. When it comes to elementary factual errors, I stopped counting at a dozen and that does not include the numerous additional ones have been exposed in reviews since. It certainly calls into question the methodology used in researching the text.

Mistaken details might be overlooked if the overall story was accurately told, but here too McDonald and her editors display remarkable carelessness. Let me illustrate with one of many possible examples. Regarding faith-based education politics in Ontario, McDonald claims that Premier Harris was “intent on wooing the suburban evangelical vote, promised tax credits for private schools. But his proposal never made it into law and the issue appeared to drop off the political map.” (222). The facts are that the tax credit was part of Ontario’s 2001 budget and subsequently passed into law through Bill 45, Equity in Education Tax Credit in June 2001. This bill provided for a five-year phase in commencing with the 2002 tax year but became a major issue in the 2003 provincial election. Subsequent to their election, the McGuinty Liberals reversed this tax credit (some would argue punitively, withdrawing the credit for the 2003 tax year at the end of the year creating hardship for many who had counted on it). Given that the major Conservative proponent of this initiative was then provincial Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who was a candidate in the 2002 and 2004 provincial Conservative leadership races, the matter was a major issue in both of these races. The point is not to play “gotcha” with Ms. McDonald. However, she devotes 38 pages to a chapter entitled “Raising the Joshua Generation” exposing how “it is possible to spend an entire academic lifetime… inside the cocoon of faith-based institutions,” something that McDonald suggests gives them “only a nodding acquaintance with the secular society they scorn.” (7). It seems incredible that she dismisses the issue as “(dropping) off the political map” in Ontario politics when in fact, it was a major part of the narrative.

And so, the harsh criticism this book has received in the press is well deserved. But just because she gets the story wrong does not mean there is not a story to tell. In her preface, McDonald describes a Canada with two solitudes. “On the one side are those who inhabit what is regarded as the mainstream – sophisticated, secular and urban…..(o)n the other side is an increasingly self-sufficient conservative Christian cosmos, largely planted in Canada’s suburbs and rural outposts, which believes the world is going to hell in a hand basket and is preparing for that divinely ordained eventuality” (7). Interestingly, McDonald notes that Stephen Harper won the Canadian Alliance leadership “as the determined voice of secularism” but subsequently changed his mind. She extensively cites his Civitas speech (which McDonald mistakenly dates as June 2003) in which he “laid out a blueprint for a new conservative coalition that was tantamount to an ideological conversion” (33). She continues the story, including details that were well documented in the press and on various organizational websites , as if it were carried out in a clandestine manner. Initiatives “came to light,” offices were “tucked away” and spokespersons “admit” things in this movement of “stealth and obfuscation.” She does admit that the movement includes diverse perspectives but chooses to focus on “Christian nationalism,” which, she tells us, is a “radical theocratic vision…that embraces a much larger body of believers who parrot the same brand of hyper patriotic religiosity and share many of the same aims, but have only the haziest grasp of any defining theology” (11). Since she acknowledges these adherents lack a defined theology, McDonald is not shy about giving them one. The movement, she tells us, has four key theological tenants: the end-times are at hand, Canada has a God-ordained role in the unfolding of this apocalyptic drama, Israel being returned as a Jewish stronghold with “Old Testament might” , and consequently, temporal concerns like global warming can be ignored in favour of “saving souls.”
As anyone with a smidgen of theological literacy will attest, although these elements can be found in the theology of some, most of those who McDonald portrays as proponents of this Christian nationalism would vigorously object this characterization. Let me illustrate with just two of the theologians McDonald cites as providing the framework for the movement.

Rousas John Rushdoony was a California based orthodox Calvinist philosopher, historian and theologian. He is known as the father of a movement known as Christian Reconstructionism, which emphasized continuity between Old and New Testament times. John Nelson Darby was a nineteenth century English evangelist who produced a new translation of the Bible. He is known for dividing history into seven eras or dispensations. Not to get into all the theological details but those who attend churches that follow Rushdoony would tend to be austere Calvinists in their worship and emphasize the requirements for here-and-now obedience and faithfulness while Darbyists would typically be enthusiastic Pentecostals whose focus would be on the second coming of Christ and the rapture of believers. You don’t need an advanced theology degree to understand that these groups disagree about quite a bit. Yet, reading MacDonald (who spends a few pages on each), Rushdoony and Darby are merged into the intellectual fathers of a single movement. Judging from her source notes, she appears to have simply relied on a few American authors to make sweeping generalizations on Canadian perspectives which amount to little more than gross un-nuanced and ill-informed caricatures. The fact that McDonald recruits prominent Jewish leaders such as Joseph Ben Ami and Ezra Levant, and for good measure the Canadian Constitution Foundation (whose litigation director Karen Selick has written “I don’t believe (God) exists and I get exasperated at times with people who do”) as co-conspirators in this Christian nationalist project, reduces her theological explanations to comedy.

I wonder if the two solitudes framework which McDonald admits in her preface is perhaps at the root of the failings of this book. McDonald sees herself as part of the “sophisticated, secular, and urban” crowd and admits to being “shocked” by the “inflammatory” polarizing rhetoric of those her book is describing. Although she has taken publicly taken pains to portray herself as religiously sympathetic and trying to objectively describe the positions and motives of those with whom she clearly disagrees, she does not succeed in suspending her own judgment long enough to hear what they are saying. Consequently, what we get is a careless synthesis of some of most outlandish statements from a few of the noisiest spokespeople which she warps into some new-fangled Christian dominionism, the contours of which are practically unrecognizable to most everyone she claims is a proponent. McDonald suggests that this wave of Christian nationalism is “united across the continent by the charismatic renewal movement,” but that will come as a surprise to majority of Christians involved in conservative politics. In fact, most of those who belong to churches who adhere to a theology that comes closest to McDonald’s account tend to resist political engagement. Saving souls doesn’t happen through politics (losing your soul through politics would in fact be a more familiar theme in these churches) and if God has a special place for Canada in solving Middle East tensions in order to clear the timetable for His imminent return, the logical implications would prompt a platform and focus very different than the one she describes at work in Ottawa.
There are two further key considerations for which McDonald does not adequately account. Her assessment of conservatism is flawed in that she seeks to describe a unifying political philosophy where none exists. Following the 2006 election, I outlined in a Policy Options article how the newly formed Conservative Party reflected a coalition between at least six distinguishable genres of conservatism, of which social conservatism was but one (and was best understood as consisting of two distinct sub-strands.) Anyone who has attended Conservative party policy discussions in the conservative movement will recognize that a fierce debate continues between these groups. As recently as the Civitas conference in Calgary on May 2nd, Alberta Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith provided a keynote entitled “Reconciling Economic and Social Conservatism,” an indication that the matters Mr. Harper addressed at the same gathering in 2003 are hardly settled questions. However, reading McDonald’s book, it would come as a surprise that this debate is taking place. McDonald makes no allowance for the nuance and fault lines around which this debate is taking place. Instead, every initiative described is presented implicitly or explicitly as part of Harper’s “theo-con” strategy. She concedes that “Harper’s theo-con constituency is not large enough to guarantee him a clear majority” (353) but none-the-less, this is portrayed as a reluctant accommodation to reality that is forcing a moderation in pursuing these objectives and not in any way a challenge to her thesis.

In addition to not accounting for the complexity of the conservative movement, McDonald also fails to account for the various strands of orthodox religious perspective present in Canada. She concludes her book recounting an episode on a radio call-in show in which she knew her affirmative answer to a questioner’s “Are you a Christian?” did not meet his criteria since “I am, to put it bluntly, not his kind of Christian, and as such, I am the Other, the enemy ” (360). Sadly, McDonald seems oblivious to the fact that her book contains a very similar judgmental intolerance regarding those who hold orthodox religious perspectives.

It is regrettable that McDonald did not choose to engage the significant scholarship (including McGill’s Charles Taylor, whose wrote a 2007 prize-winning book A Secular Age) regarding the interplay of religion and public life. It is clear that orthodox proponents of various faith perspectives are increasingly engaged in public life and that the so-called secular consensus of the latter half of the twentieth century (which UBC professor George Egerton has effectively shown is an a-historical anomaly) no longer holds in a post 9/11 era. Instead, The Armageddon Factor amounts to little more than a poorly researched screed that caricatures its subjects, bungles the story, and contributes to broadening the chasm between Canada’s publics.

Things Dutch

2010-06-15T08:08:00.002-06:00

As a Canadian born to post-World War II Dutch immigrants, I retain a special affection for things Dutch. So when the Danes provide a gift goal and the Dutch win a soccer game, I cheer. I also try to follow matters of Dutch society and politics from afar. Last week's election results do seem to be a disappointment from where I sit. The center-right coalition government led by the Christian Democrats fell in February over the issue of Afghanistan . They feel to fourth place in last week's election which has produced a likely center-left coalition in its place. TheBritish Guardian seems more pleased with the outcome than I am from afar, but the subtext of the support throughout Europe for libertarian parties based on popular concerns about Muslim influence is a developing trend that is worth paying attention to.

Netherlands election: Austerity with a conscience
Whenever a party of the extremes polls dramatically well in Europe, many here see this as the most important feature

Editorial
The Guardian, Saturday 12 June 2010

Coalition politics are still a novelty in Britain. But they are everyday stuff in the Netherlands, where no party has won an overall majority since the first world war and none has polled more than 30% of the vote in more than 20 years. Even so, this week's general election has produced an exceptionally fragmented result, with the Liberals leapfrogging from fourth to first in the vote, though still with only 20% support and a mere 31 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament, while the previously governing centre-right Christian Democrats plunged in the opposite direction to 14% (21 seats), the worst result in the party's history.

Whenever a party of the extremes polls dramatically well in Europe, many here are tempted to see this as the most important feature of the result. This week the Freedom party of the anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Geert Wilders more than doubled its vote, finishing third on 15%, and is demanding a place in whatever coalition emerges from the Netherlands' long process of government formation. Yet this success must be seen in perspective. In an election where many conditions – the recession and the eurozone crisis among them – favoured a protectionist and xenophobic party, Mr Wilders actually polled less well that his predecessor party, the Pim Fortuyn List, did in 2002. The Freedom party's 15% is certainly disturbing, but it is very much on a par with similar movements in Belgium, France and Denmark which have rarely been able to push beyond the mid-teens of public support. And outsider parties have often done well in recent Dutch elections before falling back – exactly what happened to the leftwing Socialists in 2006 and 2010.

A less exciting but more accurate reading of Wednesday's result would be that the votes of the centre-left parties held up, while those of the right splintered both to the Liberals and the Freedom party. Indisputably the Christian Democrats were the big losers. In an election dominated not by immigration but by the economy and the deficit, Dutch voters could therefore be said to have opted for fiscal austerity with a social conscience, much as British voters did a month ago. This leaves the Liberals well placed to govern with the centre-left in what would here be called a progressive coalition.

Without any clearly dominant party in the new parliament, it will not be easy to form a new government. Yet there is every reason to think and hope that the Liberal leader Mark Rutte will ultimately be able to form such a coalition. If so, that would be the best outcome for the Netherlands and Europe, and for the wider standing of both. Dutch voters have not given Mr Wilders a mandate to govern, and he should certainly not now be rewarded with one.

Monday Morning Potpourri......

2010-06-14T07:42:00.004-06:00

A few items that have no connection to each other, but come to mind as bloggable on this Monday morning.....

NDP- Liberal Coalition - There has been a raft of op-eds regarding this. For what it's worth, my own expectation is that the grassroots of neither party is ready for this. I suspect there are quite a few Liberal insiders who are disgruntled with the leadership of Ignatieff and are retrospectively begrudging the unusual process by which he was granted the leadership (for those who don't remember, it had something to do with an urgency created by a proposed coalition with the NDP and Bloc). I doubt they are ready to allow another coalition-induced fast-track. My guess is that there are at least three camps in the Liberal party today: those who take comfort in the fact that Mr. Chretien and Mr. Harper were at similar levels of (non)support during their times as opposition leaders before their first election, and both managed to recover, so all is not hopeless; a second group which believes that a leadership change will change the political dynamics entirely and give the Liberals a real chance at winning against a PM and Conservative leader they see as vulnerable; and a third group who beleives that the problems require a much deeper solution that includes policy, organization, and more time than exists between now and the next election, regardless of when it is held. All in all, it will make for an interesting summer of political gossip and maneuverings in the Liberal camp. As for the NDP, this talk only helps the gravitas of their brand, positioning them as potential partners in government even as they remain a more principled voice of opposition from the left. As long as this coalition talk is bubbling, they have every interest in keeping it on the front page and who knows, it may even develop a life of its own such that if the numbers roll out right after the next election (or subsequent election), the prospect of a British style coalition involving the NDP seems more realistic and gives them an argument to their vote that the NDP vote is not a wasted one. The Conservatives, too, don't mind this coalition talk. It gives them a target to talk about, foments dissent in the LIberals, and helps the NDP which in many Ontario ridings, is useful in the vote-splitting game.

Book Plug - I came home to a package of Calvin: Theologian and Reformer which includes a chapter that I co-authored with Dr. Beeke. Over the weekend, I had the chance to read (most of) the rest of the book which I had not seen before and would particularly recommend Ian Hamilton's chapter on Calvin the Reformer, in which in a very winsome and easy to follow manner, he outlines the factors which enabled a shy and timid scholar like Calvin to become the reformer he was. The five factors include a spiritual dynamic (Calvin was "a man subdued by God"); doctrinal motivations; a passion for peace and unity; a great commission commitment; and a learned ministry. More on this book is available on the RHB website.

Football - Since it is the FIFA world cup, I guess I should call it football even though the term soccer seems more fitting. World cup is the only occasion I pay any attention to this sport and given that Canada did not qualify, it seems natural to root for the Dutch. However, one of the more humourous pieces I have seen make the rounds is the YOUTUBE Monte Python skit on the philosophers having a soccer match. My guess is that most will have seen it but in case you haven't, I post it for your enjoyment.

In Today's Globe and Mail....

2010-06-02T07:52:00.003-06:00

I have an op-ed which puts Marci McDonald's book in the context of the larger argument about the public good of religion. (Click here for link.)

Religious faith is the civic oxygen of our social ecology

The secularizing experiment of the past 40 years has been a failure

Author Marci McDonald’s latest book, The Armageddon Factor, mocked for its sky-shouting alarm about a purported Christian putsch in Canadian federal politics, has been dismissed by its harsher critics as delusional rubbish being pushed through the public square.

And yet, Ms. McDonald’s face-off with public faith deserves a second look, at least for what it says about the suspicion and hostility many Canadians harbour toward mixing religious and political belief.

The Armageddon Factor may be, as its detractors argue, anti-theist fear-mongering. Yet the book’s publisher is clearly betting it will sell to the growing number of Canadians who see faith not merely as a private good, but as a public bad.

It’s hardly a reckless wager. Whether the discussion involves Muslims, Sikhs, Jews or Christians, it has become common to express uneasiness with any public expression of truth claims that might be considered exclusive to a given faith group. Such public claims are increasingly viewed as divisive or – mortal sin of the 21st century – intolerant.

Common expression need not translate into majority belief. However, 9/11 made us all profoundly aware of private belief’s public consequences. Since Canadians are committed to equality and pluralism, the thinking goes, of necessity we need great care in dealing with all religion in public.

Even granting the virtue in prudence, it’s critical to see such neo-squeamishness about public faith as itself undesirable for several reasons.

First, it’s flatly ahistorical and utterly ignores Canada’s founding nature. Second, it risks befouling the very “civic oxygen” that religious faith provides in superabundance to Canada’s social ecology.

While it is now standard fare to hear Canadian secular nationalists imitate their American counterparts by parroting phrases about separation of church and state, Christian faith and practice were essential elements in the construction of Canada.

Confederation involved the creation of a national polity within which two separate societies, French Catholic and English Protestant, could unite. In the constitutional protection for religious education, in the social gospel movement of the early 20th century, or in the relationship of the Duplessis government to the Catholic Church, we find the broad trajectory of forces that bound otherwise disparate Canadians together.

Yet our shift to the “secular pluralism” of the past 40 years has been possible primarily because of the social contributions of those who practice religious faith. There is, demonstrably, a civic oxygen on which Canadian social ecology relies, and it is generated by the nation’s churches, synagogues and mosques.

If Canada’s institutions of faith ceased to participate in our country’s public life, it would be the civic equivalent of the clearing of the rain forest. The social ecological implications would be far more significant than many comprehend.

Statistics Canada data on charitable giving demonstrates this. For example, parsing Statscan numbers, the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy calculates that the 32 per cent of Canadians who are religiously active contribute 65 per cent of direct charitable donations. Even in the secular sector, they provide 42 per cent of the $2.1-billion raised annually by direct giving.

Such statistics do not begin to factor in the importance of the institutional church in contributing to public and social infrastructural space. Institutional religion provides significant social cohesion to cities suffering fragmentation, isolation and disintegration.

Can we, reasonably and in a democratic society, demand the members of such institutions simply perform good works, give freely and then shut up? If public, political language can only exclude God, we are not just preventing believers from speaking about their faith. We are denying them the right to speak for themselves.

That is why the paradigm presented by The Armageddon Factor cannot be taken. It is not just injurious. It is not just false. It is unsustainable.

Historical, sociological, legal and philosophical evidence all prove that that the secularizing experiment of the past 40 years has been a failure.

In Defence of Politicians

2010-05-25T23:56:00.003-06:00

I never was a big fan of Jean Chretien's, although I must admit to admiring the chutzpah and political skill that he showed throughout his career. But in honour of his defense of politicians which was provided on the occasion of his Parliamentary portrait hanging which earned him the praise even of Stephen Harper, a bit of political defense comment seems entirely in order.

The Costs of Family -I ran for Parliament in the 2000 election, when our son was 10 years old. When making this decision, we considered the implications for family of winning and determined that we would try to live together as a family for most of the time, even when Parliament was in session. That would have involved commuting as a family between Hamilton and Ottawa. The voters of Ancaster-Dundas-Flambourough-Aldershot (as the riding was then known) determined that our family would not have to work through this challenge. What prompts this observation is the news that Russ Hiebert, an MP from British Columbia with a young family has incurred the largest expense bill of all Members of Parliament, due in a large part to his commitment to flying his family from BC to Ottawa when the House sits. For the record, I think this is money well spent, even if it is taxpayers money, and I applaud this MPs commitment to maintaining as normal a family life as possible in a career that is notorious for its family-destructive consequences.

Tough Life in the Public Eye - Michael Bryant, former Liberal Attorney-General, has been cleared in the charges regarding a tragic incident in which a bike courier died as a result of a collision with the vehicle that Mr. Bryant was driving. Although there is little doubt that Mr. Bryant benefited from his position, contacts, and media savvy in navigating the perilous waters of dealing with charges such as these, the challenge of being in public life is also that the authorities feel an extra pressure to pursue the charges lest they be accused of showing favoritism. I am sure the past months have been a nightmarish challenge for Mr. Bryant and although I do not share his politics, I am glad to see him vindicated.

We Are All Believers

2010-05-25T08:16:00.002-06:00

"(Michael Ignatieff)regards equality as an article of faith in the same way that Cotler regards human rights as the “secular religion” of our time." John van Heyking, Political Science Professor at the University of Lethbridge effectively makes the point that we are all believers and our participation in the public square requires certain faith commitments, in an article entitled the Religious-Secular Overlap, posted today. I recommend the entire article for your consideration.

Sweeping Generalizations Not Helpful

2010-05-20T21:41:00.004-06:00

The lead story on Calgary's local news provides an illustration as to how well-intended policies can easily lead to silly conclusions.

City auditor says there is fraud at city hall
_QR77 Newsroom
5/20/2010

The City of Calgary's auditor says she can "pretty well guarantee" there is fraud going on at city hall.
Tracy McTaggart told the city's audit committee Thursday it's likely there is some fraud going on in the procurement department. She says with 13,000 full time employees, it's statistically likely someone is breaking a rule somewhere. McTaggart says she has heard a number of complaints through the whistle blower program and they are currently being investigated.
Alderman Ric McIver says in the past city administration didn't seem too concerned about the problem; however he says going forward, things will be much more transparent.

So what exactly is the news here? The auditor has received some complaints and is investigating. That's her job. But until there are specifics to report, please spare us the "statistically likely" line, casting suspicion on every public servant.

What makes the issue relevant is the current debate about the Auditor General wanting to audit the expenses of Members of Parliament. For the record, the situation has become one in which I think MPs should submit to the request. Given the near-universal critique of the MPs position, failing to involve the Auditor General will only contribute to public cynicism and distrust.

That being said, I still think it is a bad idea. Parliament's job is to hold the government accountable. The Auditor General reports to Parliament to assist them in doing their job. It seems to me that asking her to audit Parliament's spending mixes up the lines of authority just a tad. That is why there is an existing auditing process involving outside auditors and a general summary of expenses that already is made public.

But meaningless statements such as those uttered by Calgary's auditor today and repeated as a headline item on the evening news do help me understand why MPs are reluctant. The coverage of this issue seems to be premised on a mistrust of the institution and is likely to degenerate into a silly reporting frenzy on which MP buys Starbucks as opposed to Tim Hortons. Spending less will somehow be spun into a political virtue and what will be lost is the fact that some spend less because they do less. At the end of the day, this ends up being about silly politics rather than good governance and contributes to a diminishing of the political processes at a very time when the opposite is required.

Normalcy Resumed.....

2010-05-20T06:50:00.003-06:00

My best intentions to regularly blog over the past month or so have been interrupted by life. However, the calender looking forward seems a bit more normalized so hopefully I can resume a more regular presence on this page.

A few items from my "want to wade into the discussion" list....

Polling Numbers - Responses to the question, "If an election were held tomorrow..." when there is no election tomorrow need to be intrepreted with caution. In Canada especially, election campaigns matter and top-of line numbers are usually misleading. What strikes me about the EKOS poll this morning (and this seems to be more or less a trend in recent polls) is that the numbers relating to leadership and "is the country heading in the right direction" both favour the Conservatives. These numbers, combined with Mr. Ignatieff's challenges in gaining traction with voters, suggest to me that an election remains a good ways off, unless there is a major blunder / scandal on the part of the government around which all of the opposition parties can rally.

Abortion Politics - Margaret Wente's observations in this morning's Globe are probably accurate - any abortion legislation in Canada in the near future is very unlikely, notwithstanding the headline rhetoric of late. I regret this fact deeply given my belief that this issue involves unborn human lives and I trust, even those who disagree with me on that matter, would concede that it would be less than civilized for someone who truly believes life begins at or near conception to somehow think that the taking of such a life to be of little public consequence. Still, the issue in Canada is a cultural one, not a political one at this time, since there does not seem to be a requisite consensus and political will to implement change. What is striking is how the issue of maternal health on an international scale - an issue which ultimately is about motherhood, as Father De Souza points out eleoquently in his column this morning, has been hijacked to be about Canadian domestic politics. The notion that we cannot even talk about international aid without getting mired in this issue sadly shows that even when we are supposedly giving and caring, the focus of some is still more on us than on those we are helping.

Marci McDonald's book - This morning's papers contain yet more critical reviews (see Ezra Levant's here and Gerry Nicholls here - the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has links to several additional reviews on their page.) In addition to much of what has been written, I have a few points to make which haven't been raised in the columns I have seen.

But it isn't wise to scoop yourself - Cardus Policy in Public will carry my piece on this book and I have an op-ed relating to the matter which is being presently being peddled . However, since several have asked and indicated that they have looked in vain on this page for comment on this book, I thought I should at least give a heads-up that commentary is coming, and my silence here is simply a prudent measure not to scoop myself.

Week in Review

2010-05-08T09:20:00.003-06:00

British Election - So they held an election, all parties fell short of expectations, and now the dealing begins. I need to do some more work on the specifics of the electoral reform being promoted by the Lib-Democrats but a scenario I heard floated in which Labour and the Lib-Democrats do a deal (with some minority party support) that lasts long enough for electoral reform to pass, with a view to having another election a year or so down the road under the new rules, seems at least one of the options that may come out of this. If meaningful electoral reform happens in Britian and produces something workable, it will be interesting to see how that impacts Canadian politics. Our own political divisions presently have us in perpetual minority status and an electoral reform breakthrough could be one way out of the dilemma.

Charity Watch - Imagine Canada put out the first edition of its Sector Monitor Report based on survey data from leaders in the charitable sector. It provides a most interesting insight to the challenges faced by charities in Canada today. I won't try to summarize the detail because I think the insight comes from the nuance of the report (its only 16 pages so if you are interested, hit the link.) It does speak to the fact that in the long run, the charitable sector does face its challenges and thinking about what this will look like a decade down the road, when the needs will be greater and volunteer resources fewer, is an important issue for us to think about.

Independent Schools - IMFC released a report this week on independent education in Ontario. As I noted in Policy Options piece after the last Ontario election, public debates on this topic stand out for being based on slogan and not on fact. One of the interesting facts that the IMFC piece highlights:

Ontario Ministry of Education numbers state that independent elementary and secondary school enrolment in 2005 was 119,584.34 Statistics Canada states that
the average expenditure per public school student in Ontario in 2004 was $9,200.35
In 2005 alone, independent schools should have saved the Ontario Ministry of
Education $1,100,172,800.36

Ottawa Update....

2010-05-05T10:32:00.002-06:00

Providing a news report on an event at which you are the main speaker is a bit tacky, but I know that various regular readers of this blog were interested in last night's ARPA event. The meeting was well-attended - about 60 in total was my guess - with a good representation of MPs from both the Liberal and Conservative parties joining the 25 ARPA reps from across the country and a few members of the Ottawa ARPA. Co-sponsored by John MacKay and Maurice Vellacott, the event consisted of a short introduction by ARPA, my speech, and a Question and Answer period. I was impressed by the thoughtful questions raised by Justin Trudeau, Derek Lee, Phil McColeman and Russ Hiebert who between them, raised the issues relating to the unique character of Quebec secularism , the role of historical (il) literacy in the advance of the secularism, the connection between freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and the role of the media in culture change.

The meeting was held in West Block Room 308 which is one of the old committee rooms in Parliament that also functions as an NDP caucus room. The committee room tables were set up and it facilitated good conversation. Regrettably there were no NDP members present (unless I missed them, for which I apologize - there were a few MPs I did not get the chance to personally meet although I think I recognized most who were there.) It was a bit surreal to have to make the arguments for a public conversation that includes robust conversation informed by open faith perspectives in a room graced by the photos of Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth.

It is always hard to measure the impact of events like this but the organizers seemed pleased; most who came stayed for the entire event and seemed engaged (even though some mentioned in advance they would have to leave early, they stayed and even asked questions), and I noticed various asking for multiple copies of the printed text that was made available at the end of the evening. Thanks to ARPA for their organization of this event and for inviting me to participate. Thanks also to the various readers of this blog for their expressions of interest. I presume that more objective updates will come in due course from others.

Clearcutting our Civic Rainforest?

2010-05-04T13:58:00.006-06:00

I am in Ottawa, having attended various meetings today and just put the final spit and polish on my remarks for tonights Parliament Hill lecture sponsored by ARPA. The complete text of an expanded version of my remarks has been published by ARPA and will be available from them, but one of my final paragraphs does provide the gist of my argument:

In summary, stripped of the entire nuance my point can be reduced to a relatively simple one. Historical, sociological, legal and philosophic evidence all point to the fact that the secularizing experiment of the past forty years – attempting to shape a public square in which God is neither met nor encountered – is a failure. The suppression of public religion amounts to the clear-cutting of our civic rainforest and is denying us the social oxygen we need as a society to continue. What is required is a paradigm for public discourse that recognizes religion neither as a private good, nor as a public bad, but rather as a vital resource and defining part of every person and for our nation. We are all religious, whether our faith is theistic or non-theistic. We appeal to transcendent norms, standards beyond ourselves. Without a public conversation regarding how these aspirations contribute to the public good, we reduce ourselves to a collection of individuals sharing a geography but without a framework that can sustain a healthy social environment.

Birth of the Civic State

2010-04-29T13:45:00.002-06:00

It is dangerous commenting publicly on matters far afield on which one does not pretend to be an expert, but I suspect I am on fairly safe ground surmising that with Prime Minister Brown's astonishing display on how not to campaign yesterday, it is fairly safe to assume there will be a new government in Britain in a few weeks time. Doing some web research on another project, I came across the website of a thinktank called ResPublica which based on a quick glance, seems to have a Red Tory type of take on life.

In an interesting article which I have only had the chance to skim, Philipp Blond observes that with the expected election of the Conservatives, the social architecture of Britian is about to radically change.

1979 brought an end to the welfare state, 2009 will see an end to the market state and the next election will, with the election of a conservative government, usher in the birth of the civic state.

Brit Conservatives Promote Big Society

2010-04-29T07:03:00.002-06:00

By no means would I endorse everything in this platform, but David Cameron's Conservatives in Britain have an interesting section in their platform entitled "Big Society."
Big Society

We have set out an ambitious agenda to build a Big Society based around social responsibility and community action.
Under a Conservative government, charities, voluntary groups and a new generation of community organisers will help tackle some of the most stubborn social problems.
A Conservative government will:

Establish a new Big Society Bank, using money from unclaimed bank accounts to leverage hundreds of millions of pounds of extra finance for neighbourhood groups, charities and social enterprises;

Introduce a National Citizen Service, a new volunteering programme to help 16 year olds develop their skills, mix with people from different backgrounds and get involved in improving their communities;

Promote the delivery of public services by social enterprises, charities and voluntary groups, encouraging them to get involved in running things like Sure Start;

Introduce a fair deal on grants so charities and voluntary organisations can make a competitive return when providing public services, just as private businesses already do;

Fund the training of an army of independent community organisers to help people establish and run neighbourhood groups;

Launch an annual Big Society Day to celebrate the work of neighbourhood groups and encourage more people to take part in social action;

Lead by example, transforming the civil service into a ‘civic service’ by encouraging civil servants to volunteer and participate in social action projects;

Cut the bureaucracy and paperwork which currently stifles charities, including reforming the criminal records checks system and making Gift Aid easier to use
Develop a new measure of well-being that encapsulates the social value of state action;

Empower communities to come together to address local issues; including enabling parents to open new schools, letting neighbours take over local amenities like parks and libraries that are under threat, giving the public greater control of the planning system, and enabling residents to hold the police to account in neighbourhood beat meetings;

Use the latest insights from behavioural economics to encourage people to donate more time and money to charity; and

Restore the National Lottery to its original purpose, cut down on administration costs and make sure more money goes to good causes instead of Ministers' pet projects.

Crouch on Hunter

2010-04-24T10:16:00.004-06:00

Yesterday a book review by Andy Crouch of James Davison Hunter's recent book To Change the World was posted on the Books and Culture website. I commend the CT editors for choosing Crouch to review Hunter, given that these two have published what would generally be considered the two most significant books regarding culture change in recent years. They also have disagreed quite publicly and Hunter spends four pages in his book directly taking on Crouch.

I won't scoop myself as I plan to write a Comment article on this debate in the next few weeks but for those readers of this page not familiar with the discussion, Crouch's review is a good place to start. He quite fairly and generously describes some of the key issues in dispute, as well as summarizes Hunters' thesis well.

If the review whets your appetite and you want to think through the issues regarding Christian engagement with culture in our present context, I would recommend both Crouch's Culture Making and Hunters To Change the World as required reading.

P.S. (added later)
By "quite public disagreement," I do not intend to imply a personal aspect to the disagreement between Crouch and Hunter. I am simply referring to the fact that two leading authors present different frameworks regarding how Christians relate to culture and by virtue of the fact that each is published, that disagreement is public. More on this in my forthcoming piece, but in response to private correspondence prompted by this post, I want to clarify that I am not referring to nor am aware of anything personal between the two.

Political Potpourri....

2010-04-23T09:10:00.003-06:00

It's Friday and a chance to catch up on a few things, including some political happenings of the week(s) gone by....

Watch for Maxine Bernier - As Paul Martin found out, leadership manouverings while a member of the government caucus is tricky business. Still, every Conservative knows that there will a leadership race eventually and finding a way to position yourself as one of the contenders is something that ambitious Conservatives are thinking about, even though it is wisest not to talk about it much.

Back in 2005, I was sitting around a table with a number of politicos and the game of shortlisting who might be the next leader of the Conservatives was being played. Maxine Bernier came out as one of the front runners that evening, although his indiscretions while in Cabinet have undoubtedly devalued his political currency since. Still, I think Ian MacDonald gets it most right in his column this morning - Bernier's current roadshow and ability to poke some fun at himself is setting him up to at least be a potential kingmaker in that process, whenever it will occur.

Pollster Transparency - Yesterday I linked Lawrence Martin's article plugging a "culture war" strategy for the Liberals. I am just catching up this morning on the news of the past few days and ">just watched Kory Teneycke rather effectively expose both Mr. Graves and the CBC for what appears to be less than transparent declarations of their biases. Political junkies will enjoy this 10 minute clip. What I found most interesting was Mr. Graves attempt to downplay his liberal connections early on (referring him as a small "l" liberal and trying to take the non-partisan role) as well as both Evan Solomon's and Graves defensive appeals to "objective" and "professional" throughout. I am not suggesting that Mr. Graves or the CBC are alone among the pundits and stations that profile them to not be as transparent as they should be in declaring their biases - it is just when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you should be a little more forthcoming in admitting what is going on.

Rahim Revisited - I haven't commented too much on the Guergis - Jaffer story (a) because I have no information besides what is available in the media, and I don't think anyone can come up with a clear version of the true facts of the case based on what is out there right now; and (b) I find it an incredibly sad story of two lifes being ruined by politics. It would seem after this weeks' testimony by Mr. Jaffer that there were at least "in spirit" violations of the Lobbyists Act but that amounts to not filling out some forms in a hope of staying under the radar screen. I think Chantal Hebert's take that this is an example of vindicative Harper justice quite harsh but there is little doubt, as Barbara Yaffe points out, that the political careers of both Mr. Jaffer and Ms. Guergis appear to bottoming out. The only out might be Ms. Guergis, if the RCMP provides a clear vindication, but that also depends on how such a vindication would be played in the press.

Until such a time comes, it is hard to read about this story without being distracted by the personal and salacious stuff which is attached to the story. I guess having spent a lot of time in the political world, having met many Rahim and Helena couples who met through politics, made politics their life, and have little of a "real world" base or experience to anchor themselves, I find myself feeling sorry for them.

National Post soon to be no More - The writing has been on the wall for a while but the Globe and Mail is reporting that the Toronto Star will emerge as the likely winner, with the National Post being reduced to a Financial Post section of that paper. I remember the day the first NP came out (believe I still have a copy in my files) and have read it (along with the other national papers) more or less faithfully for their decade plus of operations. I have frequently opined that the greatest benefit of the National Post was that it provided competition to the Globe and Mail which turned it into a much better newspaper. While presently I enjoy several NP columnists and am a subscriber, I will confess their news coverage is less than complete and while I value some of the stories they will run that their competitors ignore, their demise will be more of a loss for diversity than depth of news coverage. Still, it will be a loss.

Culture War Strategy for Libs?

2010-04-22T07:31:00.002-06:00

In his column this morning, Lawrence Martin quotes Frank Graves from EKOS research providing the following advice to the Liberals:

“I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

Not that the content is surprising, as variations of "scary agenda" politics have been a Liberal staple for the past few decades, but the tone and stridency is both revealing and not quite demonstrating the tolerance and openness that Canadians are supposedly defined by.

Chaplin on Loving Institutions

2010-04-21T11:30:00.002-06:00

Yesterday I summarized my long weekend activities which included spending time at the Senior Fellows Conference and at the God and Globalization conference with Cardus Senior Fellow Jonathan Chaplin whose day job is as director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics in England. Today my attention was drawn to a valuable article Jonathan had published last week at theotherjournal.com entitled Loving Faithful Institutions: Building Blocks of a Just Global Society." I strongly suggest you hit the link and read the whole thing; here are few excerpts to whet your appetite.

Because this piece is intended as a polemic, and in order to get something on the radar screens of Christian postmoderns, let me get my central beef off my chest right away: many Christians who have been understandably, and often rightly, drawn to postmodern ways of thinking (there may be one or two among the readership of TOJ—and I’d welcome their responses) need to learn to love institutions again, and they won’t get very far in transforming society unless they do. And such Christians also need to see that existing institutions, especially the larger ones, are already “faith-based.” Contrary to the ruling secularist mindset, institutions like corporations, universities, government bureaucracies, and professional bodies are not devoid of faith-based influences; they merely deny their presence. The key questions, then, are: which faith (or faiths) drive these institutions? And how can a biblically inspired faith make any impact on them in a secular, plural society?

I’m obviously not saying that Christians must love modernist institutions as I’ve just depicted them: those kinds of institutions need to be resisted and reshaped in ways I’ll gesture toward shortly. But if my sketch of a postmodern view of social formations is anywhere near on target, then Christians, I’ll suggest, have to move beyond a model of mere ”dynamic relational networks” if they are to exercise the kind of cultural influence that actually advances justice and peace.

....

Introducing a relational networks model may be a good thing as far as it goes, but it won’t be enough to move large corporations closer toward a genuine commitment to economic justice and solidarity. A much broader structural transformation is required, and this will involve asking a very basic question that is hardly ever asked in mainstream debate, and the answer to this question will be inescapably shaped by one faith-perspective or another: what unique human purposes can business corporations properly serve, and how can they be (re)designed to serve them better? A Christian vision of economic life will have some distinctive things to say about that.3 ...

Let me state my general point from a rather different angle by invoking some biblical terms: those who want to be prophets had better first immerse themselves in law and wisdom. This, of course, is what biblical prophets actually had to do before any of their fellow prophets would let them loose denouncing the idols of their time: most prophets weren’t lone-rangers (the progressive equivalents of “one-man ministries”) but tended to hang out in “schools.” So, for example, everyone’s all-time-favorite prophet Isaiah wouldn’t have been able to come up with a denunciation like “woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room” (5:8), unless he’d spent a lot of time “meditating on the law of the Lord”—from which he’d have learned (from sources like Leviticus 25) that economic activity Yahweh-style involves a legal guarantee of an equitable distribution of productive resources (i.e., land) for every Israelite family. Without the law of Jubilee—a cardinal component of the Covenant—how would any prophet have had the right to denounce the rich for the injustice of unlimited capital accumulation?

Instead of me quoting more insightful paragraphs, just click the link and read the whole thing.

My Long Weekend

2010-04-20T07:37:00.002-06:00

I have just completed a long weekend in which a most interesting variety of duties were completed, which I briefly summarize here both to provide you the links if interested and also as a segue to explain that I hope a more normal pattern of blogging will soon ensue.

Last Thursday and Friday, I was in Vancouver participating in the Cardus Senior Fellows Retreat. This year, we focused on the questions of demographics and the place of Quebec in Confederation as raised by Brian Lee Crowley's book Fearful Symmetry; various issues relating to globalization as raised in the Papal Encylical Caritas in Veritate; and a discussion regarding whether a new framework was emerging to replace the "Pan-Canadian consensus" and what the particulars of that framework might look like.

From there it was off to Regent College where I was a speaker at the God and Global Economy conference held on Friday and Saturday. The format was such that speakers were asked to respond on matters other than their own sessions, but my main contribution was a presentation regarding the Papal Encylical and labour. I understand that the speeches will end up being published in some form so it would be inappropriate to post my remarks online at this time, but I organized my thoughts around two preliminary observations and then four propositions.

Two Challenges:
• There is no common framework within which unions are understood in the North American dialogue.

• The papal Encyclical proceeds from the assumption that labour unions have “been encouraged and promoted by the Church” (p64). In North America, attempts at church – labour cooperation have been unsuccessful and for the most part, there is more tension than cooperation.

Four Propositions:
• Recovering the ability to have public conversations utilizing moral language and categories is a necessary first step to addressing questions of globalization.
• A common understanding of unions as economic institutions governed by the norm of stewardship is necessary before their potential will be fully embraced.
• In a global economy, this task is global in character and the labour movement needs to organize itself in different ways and with a global worldview
• New programs and services that go beyond membership services will be key to the labour movement
o Credibility internationally will come from consistency with domestic policies.
o The economic model of North American unionism causes an over-focus on collective bargaining and membership services.
o Moral authority and political credibility in the broader arena requires cultivating and celebrating the value of work (vocation).

From there it was off to Chilliwack where on Sunday, I had the privilege of leading both services in the Chilliwack Free Reformed Church. In the morning, I preached from Isaiah 49:14-16,
    ¹⁴ But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me,
      And my Lord has forgotten me.”
       ¹⁵ “ Can a woman forget her nursing child,
      And not have compassion on the son of her womb?
      Surely they may forget,
      Yet I will not forget you.
       ¹⁶ See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands;
      Your walls are continually before Me.
       (Isaiah 49:14-16, New King James Version)

In the afternoon, we reflected on Psalm 40:7-8

⁷ Then I said, “Behold, I come;
         In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
⁸ I delight to do Your will, O my God,
         And Your law is within my heart.”
          (Psalm 40:7-8, New King James Version)

Both sermons are on-line at sermonaudio, available through links on the Chilliwack FRC site.

Yesterday was back home where I put the final touches on a speech I am scheduled to give to the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) at a Parliament Hill event on May 4th. I had committed to have a publication version of my remarks available in advance of the speech and am happy that late last evening, I was able to hit send.

So it's been a whirlwind long weekend but now back to a bit more routine of a pace, focusing on some internal organizational issues, a meeting later this week relating to the Christian Education Project, and hopefully a chance to keep up on this blog on a bit more of a regular pace. Ordinarily "long weekend" is shortform for taking time off - I think I can claim with some justification that it was hardly that. But being able to contribute in a variety of settings insights regarding things that are important and deeply matter is energizing in itself, even if I must admit to a bit of bone-weariness as a by-product.

Bill 364

2010-04-19T14:33:00.002-06:00

A Private Members Bill regarding euthansia is expected to be debated and voted on in Parliament this week. The Center for Cultural Renewal released a Lex View this morning which provides a careful analysis of what the implications of this bill entail from a legal perspective. I recommend it for your reading and consideration.

Euthanasia is truly a Pandora's Box, into which we peer only at significant risk. The drafters of Bill C384, the so-called 'right to die with dignity' amendment to the Criminal Code, must appreciate this; otherwise the proposed safeguards around the practice would be unnecessary. But the proposed safeguards are fundamentally flawed in many ways, some of which will be explored in this LexView.

At the end of the day, we must as a society determine whether we err on the side of preserving life. Our law has always erred in this direction since cheapening human life has dire and unforeseen consequences. We derivate from such fundamental principles of the common law and common wisdom at our peril. No safeguards will be adequate to avoid making tragic mistakes. In addition, allowing the practice of euthanasia could result in serious negative societal incentives that work against finding new treatments and ways to alleviate pain, both physical and mental.

The alleviation of human suffering does not justify one person deliberately ending the life of another. Even if this were not so, the risk of abuses and errors is too high. Allowing euthanasia, howsoever laudable the objective of ending human suffering may be, would devalue us all. The challenge and selfless giving involved in helping one another pass from this life with dignity creates greater respect and value for life and enhances our society as whole.

Read the complete analysis here.

The Value of Punditry

2010-04-09T06:26:00.002-06:00

Scouring through my electronic files, looking for a still-not-yet found article I once wrote which strikes me as relevant for a present assignment, I found a copy of a February 2000 article I wrote for the Hamilton Spectator. It was the first of about a dozen that I contributed as a member of the Community Editorial Board. It is a bit dated (my fourth-grade son is now finishing his first year of university and I am doing punditry type stuff as a full-time job, not a community columnist) but since it isn't on-line anywhere, I thought I would share it.

Newspapers a Place for Community to Discuss Basic Values

I’ve always enjoyed newspapers.

As a fourth grader, I remember getting off the bus and picking up the blue-bagged newspaper lying at the end of our rural driveway. As I trudged home, school bag slung over one shoulder, I kept my back to the wind in order to protect the sixteen pages of The St. Thomas Times Journal from blowing away as I read them. By the time I dawdled to the house, the front page had been digested for current events class. Over a snack, I’d make a priority of the sports and comics, but before I was done I’d glanced at every page.

My early love affair with newspapers probably wasn’t typical, but then again, typical teens are wiser than to join a political party at age 14. From the insides of a campaign office, I watched keenly to see if the attempts to manipulate the media into favourable coverage would work. I became frustrated when, knocking on doors, I found people believing the headlines I had seen cleverly plotted. I soon began reading more than one paper, and found out that different media fell victim to different biases.

From my own home, I realized that different people respond differently to newspapers. My mom was a part-time nurse, and the obituary page told her whether some of her patients would be there to await another night’s care. And then there was the seventy-something retired school teacher who lived a few miles down the road. I’ve never met him, but felt like I knew him well since his name was painted on his barn with big letters and his opinions on every controversial topic was shared through his letters-to-the-editor.

Times have changed. My fourth grade son can read the on-line version of the European and west coast papers before he goes to school. (He doesn’t.) The six-section, sixty page Spectator is in our driveway by five a.m.. The news I read on my way home from school was usually at least twenty-four hours old; today, the morning papers contain advance summaries of announcements that will be made later in the day. Based on the assumption that most readers will be already familiar with the headlines from radio, television, or electronic sources, today’s newspapers concentrate on providing depth and perspective to the issues of the day.

The task of the Spectator community editorial board is, to quote the editor, to provide “expert, alternative, and passionate perspective on our communities.” The dictionary notes that “community” refers to things shared or held in common. The news pages contains literally thousands of pieces of data that occur in the world. Opinion pieces help place this clutter in some sort of framework so readers can make sense of it.

A healthy community debate requires spirited contributions from both individuals and institutions.

Like all people, my perspective is coloured by my experiences. I’m a citizen, father, husband, union leader, church member, community activist, taxpayer, writer, neighbour – the list goes on. Each one of life’s roles casts different light on issues. The informed opinion is one that can find some clarity from amidst the shadows.

Public debate involves listening not only to individuals within groups, but also to the groups as a collective. It’s my impression, however, that today many advocates for business, education, medical, labour, religious, or family interests often present solutions as if their institution holds the secret cure to all society’s ills.

Experiences may provide interesting stories, but worthwhile opinion requires more. It explores what events tell us about our core assumptions about life. A healthy community does not depend on whether we spend X or Y dollars on the controversial proposal of the day. A healthy community reflects shared commitments about such concepts as responsibility and rights, justice and forgiveness, virtue and evil, tradition and future. Dig beneath most controversies and you can find deeply-rooted differences.

A healthy society requires a forum where these differences can be voiced. History reminds us that basic ideas must by freely debated and tested if we are to live and grow together. I look forward to use my experiences and involvement in various organizations to contribute to that debate.

Tasha's point is still valid....

2010-04-08T21:19:00.002-06:00

I wrote my last blog entry when I had not yet heard or seen the article detailing Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis' alleged activities. However, none of that invalidates my conclusion: Sometimes in politics wisdom is simply staying out of the road and watch your opponents make their missteps." It just points out that this is a game that can be played by both parties.

Tasha makes a good point....

2010-04-08T09:07:00.002-06:00

Tasha Kheiriddan rightly points out on her blog this morning how the Liberals, by overreaching on the Helena Guergis story, are actually turning the Helena sideshow into a help for the Conservatives. On yesterday's Powerplay, Wayne Easter sounded quite pathetic in trying to blame the Conservatives for not making a short phone call to clarify things, while his own party filed a formal complaint to the Ethics Commissioner when a short phone call to the bank would've answered the question.

Last week it was the fiasco of the Liberals effectively defeating their own motion on reproductive health; this week it is the overplaying of the Guergis issue. Sometimes in politics wisdom is simply staying out of the road and watch your opponents make their missteps.

April Hiatus

2010-04-06T09:37:00.002-06:00

I am hitting the crunch with various work related assignments and so blogging will go on a hiatus for a few weeks as I direct my creative energies to the places where they are presently most needed.

Political Tooing and Frowing

2010-04-01T22:28:00.002-06:00

It's been an interesting week in Canadian politics with several items begging for comment.

On Representation by Population - So a bill has been introduced that will see 30 more Members of Parliament added in an effort to balance out the ridings across the country a bit more. Not that we need more politicians, but cutting seats seems a practical impossiblity and balancing the votes per seat (at least somewhat) seems like a pretty basic democratic imperative to me. (To quote Carol James on PowerPlay, "Duh. What's the possible objection?) The fact that the Bloc will lose the advantage of disproportate influence is just a side benefit.

Election Financing - The Conservatives have announced that cutting the $30 million per year of public funding that goes to political parties, a proposal that prompted the coalition kerfuffle a year ago before it was withdrawn, will be a part of the Conservatives next election platform. I don't have the time to do all of the detailed research so the following is speculation based on my memory, but it seems to me there is a dimension to this proposal that hasn't yet received attention. When parties are running short of cash during federal campaigns, they have been known to borrow money and if I understand the process correctly, use the promise of future year government subsidy (@ $1.75 per vote received) as collateral against those loans. So what happens to the Liberals in the next election if they are running short of cash and the polls are looking like a possible Conservative majority? Does this platform promise mean a bank would be less likely to loan the Liberals money in such a circumstance, especially considering that the rules regarding how they might repay such money (will there still be limits on corporate donations?) is less than certain? Haven't seen this dimension of the plan discussed publicly yet, but could this be another example of Mr. Harper's tactical mind at work?

On Pots Calling Kettles Black - There has been much noise made over Minister of State Helena Guergis' staff writing letters of support to newspapers on her behalf. If this was her only misstep, it would not amount to much but given the succession of challenges this minister has found herself in over the past month, I suspect she will in the long term find herself shuffled out of the cabinet limelight. In the meantime, however, some of the over-the-top allegations on the part of the opposition seem just a bit rich given the fact that encouraging sympathizers to write letters of support (and even providing a bit of help in the drafting) is something I suspect many candidates and campaigns have engaged in. True enough, it was foolish for Ms. Guergis to have paid staff doing this task and not identifying themselves, but as a reporter noted, some of her accusers have been involved in similar shenigans.

April Fools History

2010-04-01T10:15:00.003-06:00

Not sure why, but looking up the origins of holidays and the practices surrounding them is something that comes to mind on days like April 1st. James Morton's blog provides a well-written summary consistent with most of the other webpages I checked this morning.

April Fool's Day History
The history of April Fool's Day or All Fool's Day is uncertain, but the current thinking is that it began around 1582 in France with the reform of the calendar under Charles IX. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced, and New Year's Day was moved from March 25 - April 1 (new year's week) to January 1.

Communication traveled slowly in those days and some people were only informed of the change several years later. Still others, who were more rebellious refused to acknowledge the change and continued to celebrate on the last day of the former celebration, April 1.

These people were labeled "fools" by the general populace, were subject to ridicule and sent on "fool errands," sent invitations to nonexistent parties and had other practical jokes played upon them. The butts of these pranks became known as a "poisson d'avril" or "April fish" because a young naive fish is easily caught.

Calvinism in China

2010-03-31T08:42:00.002-06:00

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.

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?

DaVinci's Resume

2010-03-31T07:25:00.002-06:00

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."

The Environment through a Creation-Fall-Redemption Lens

2010-03-29T07:52:00.004-06:00

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.

Earth Hour Hubris

2010-03-27T10:44:00.003-06:00

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.

(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.

On the Other Hand.....

2010-03-26T09:28:00.002-06:00

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.

Liberal Woes

2010-03-25T09:54:00.004-06:00

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.

Abortion Motion Backfires

2010-03-24T20:57:00.004-06:00

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.

Public Good of Christian Education (2)

2010-03-19T08:38:00.002-06:00

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.

Misc. Short HIts

2010-03-18T08:54:00.004-06:00

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....

Conservative Strategy for Social Justice

2010-03-17T08:03:00.004-06:00

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.

Grace on Display

2010-03-16T15:28:00.002-06:00

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.

“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.

Solemn Promises

2010-03-15T09:11:00.003-06:00

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:

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.

Canada Reborn

2010-03-10T08:40:00.003-07:00

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."

"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.

Sometimes the Persecuted are also the Persecutors

2010-03-09T15:35:00.003-07:00

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.

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

2010-03-09T07:52:00.003-07:00

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.

Worm Theology

2010-03-08T12:41:00.002-07:00

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).

Thinktank bustle on Budget Day

2010-03-04T20:40:00.005-07:00

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.

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."

Throne Speech Punditry

2010-03-03T14:50:00.002-07:00

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.

As It Happens

2010-03-02T18:26:00.002-07:00

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.

In Today's National Post....

2010-03-01T09:00:00.004-07:00

I have an op-ed regarding the importance of investing in the charitable sector.

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.

Variety Programming Ahead

2010-02-27T11:56:00.002-07:00

During the past few weeks, the Olympics have had such an everywhere presence in the media that they demanded attention (and truth be told, I don't mind the bi-annual two-week distraction, so was a willing consumer of the media force-feed.) For the past few months, Cardus' 29to42 campaign and its focus towards the upcoming federal budget has certainly been a preoccupation on my professional time, with the impacts also evident on my blogging entries which have disproportionately focused on related themes. Monday being March 1st marks a new month and a quite different pace for me as I have a range of speeches and responsibilities in the next few months which will undoubtedly impact what you might expect to find on this page. Consider today's blog entry a quick summary preview, with a bit of PR thrown in for the events in case you might want to incorporate some of these into your calender.

Federal Budget - For the past several years, I have been in the budget lock-up for the few hours preceding the budget release, drafting an analysis that Cardus releases shortly after the budget's release. (See here for last year's effort.) If you are not on our email distribution list and want to ensure that a copy of this analysis lands in your in-box with a few hours of the Minister of Finance standing to deliver his speech on Thursday, sign up for a free subscription to Cardus Policy In Public here. In addition to our own analysis on Thursday, a few days later you will receive our next complete issue of CPIP which will include an index of other thinktanks and how they have analyzed the budget.

Social Justice for Canadian Conservatives - The following week I will be back in Ottawa participating in a panel discussion at the Manning Centre's conference. Former Cabinet Minister Monte Solberg, Dave Quist from the Institute of Marriage and the Family, Jennifer Marshall from the Heritage Foundation and myself will present and debate this important issue.

Reformed Post=Secondary Education On Monday, March 22nd, I will be at Redeemer University engaging in a discussion with the Student Group Kuyper's Cafe regarding some of the challenges and opportunities that face those of us interested in the provision of a Reformed University Education in today's environment.

God and the Global Economy On April 16-17 I will be participating in a conference at Regent College in British Columbia addressing global economic issues. My focus will be labour issues and we will be discussing them in the context of and response to Pope Benedict's encyclical last year Caritas in Veritate.

Public Christianity in a Privatized Society - On May 4th, I am scheduled to deliver the second annual Hill lecture sponsored by ARPA on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. I don't see a link to the event yet on their website but if you are interested, contact their executive director Mark Penninga (info@arpacanada.com) for further information.

Puritan Conference in August - I am scheduled to deliver two keynotes and participate in a panel discussion at the second annual Puritan Reformed conference to be held in Grand Rapids in late August. I plan to speak on "Living Christ-centeredly in Everyday Life" based on Psalm 111 in one of my speeches and on "Christology: Calvin, Kuyper and Politics" in the other. These sessions were chosen within the overall conference theme "The Beauty and Glory of Christ."

Given that most of these speaking assignments have associated written assignments for publication purposes, it is quite self-evident that my free time reading will be focused around these topics over the months to come, with probably some spill-over making its way onto this page. Of course, we still have the regular Cardus projects relating work and economics, Christian education, stained glass urbanism, and cultural change which have my active engagement at various levels, so there will be undoubtedly some blog fodder produced there. Given the fact that part of the reason I blog is to help me stay disciplined in articulating (hopefully) coherent thoughts on the everyday issues of public life, expect some political analysis and reflections on the quirky and important items that pop up in the newspaper to make their way here as well.

Like the title says, variety programming ahead....

Patriotism, Work and Comment.

2010-02-26T12:14:00.003-07:00

After a busy week on the road, a few catch-up items ...

Patriotism Canadiana Style- The Olympics provide an opportunity for national pride and flag-waving. In my journeys through various cities, hotels, and airports, I have observed a significant percentage of the population adorned in patriotic colours and paraphanalia - much more than one typically encounters in Canada. While Olympic ratings numbers are very high and will only increase with the hockey craziness this weekend, the more significant measurements in my mind are those that are observable in behaviour. Last night I was flying aboard a Westjet flight to Calgary when the women's hockey final was on. It appeared that 99% of the TVs were tuned to the hockey game and when the final buzzer sounded, the plane burst into applause. A creative flight attendant's adaptation of Tom Connors The Hockey Song engaged the entire audience and it was a moment of spontaneous Canadiana patriotism, at 38,000 feet. Cool.

Work - A fascinating lunchtime conversation at our staff meeting provoked worthwhile insights about how our views on work impact not only our persona's but also the workplace. Talking about how to create buy-in and enthusiasm within a company, one of my colleagues insightfully observed that "Freedom 55" mindset and preoccupation with retirement and what we will do after work reinforces an assumption that work is something to be enjoyed for what we get out of it, rather than the inherent satisfaction that the project provides. That individual attitude is reinforced by corporate mindsets which hire and layoff based on short term economic cycles, communicating a lack of inherent loyalty and investment in the person. So we end up with two parties, neither of whom has a real loyalty or investment in each other and commitment to achieve a mission together, engaging in pretended corporate rah-rah exercises, supposedly expecting enthusiasm and high performance to be the outcome. (Thankfully there are many exceptions but the prevalence of this is clearly too wide-spread.) Some of our problems are clear systemic.

Recommending Comment - Most everything that is included in the fine publication of Comment is worth recommending (albeit I can hardly be described as a neutral observer), but if you are not a subscriber receiving our recent print edition, you are in my view missing our best yet. The print edition requires a paid subscription which of course I highly recommend. Today's email edition includes a fascinating take by David Greusel on the Olympic success of Scott Moir and Tessa Virtue. Enjoy.

New President for Redeemer

2010-02-23T19:13:00.002-07:00

The past 24 hours have been primarily filled with my responsibilities as Chair of the Board of Governors of Redeemer University College. Last night, we held a special board meeting to consider the recommendation of the Presidential Search Committee to appoint Dr. Hubert R. Krygsman to become Redeemer's third President. Today, most of my day was spent introducing Dr. Krygsman at various events: to the President's Council (the lead administrative team and deans); at a public assembly and media conference attended by several hundred members of the Redeemer community; and at a faculty/staff reception.

The official media release can be found on Redeemer's website here.

The Hamilton Spectator has an article on the matter.

Dr. David Koyzis blogs his thoughts on the First Things blog.

In today's Herald

2010-02-22T06:15:00.001-07:00

My column commenting on the vision (or lack thereof) characterizing the Alberta political scene is published.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/story.html?id=2595163

Good Men are Like Vowels

2010-02-21T21:30:00.002-07:00

My reading today included Spurgeon's Treasury of David on Psalm 33. It included the following quote from "John Kitchin, M.S. in a Funeral Sermon, 1660":

I have sometimes compared the great men of the world, and the good men of the world to the consonants and vowels in the alphabet. The consonants are the most and the biggest letters; they take up most room, and carry the greatest bulk; but, believe it, the vowels though they are the fewest and least of all the letters, yet they are most useful; they give the greatest sound of all; there is no pronunciation without vowels. O beloved, though the great men of the world take up room, and make a show above others, yet they are but consonants, a company of mute and dumb consonants for the most part; the good men they are the vowels that are of the greatest use and most concernment at every turn; a good man to help with his prayers; a good man to advise with his counsels; a good man to interpose with this authority; this is the loss we lament, we have lost a good man; death has blotted out a vowel; and I fear me there will be much silence where he is lacking; silence in the bed, and silence in the house, and silence in the shop, and silence in the church and silence in the parish, for he was everywhere a vowel, a good man in every respect.

Dutch Coalition Government Collapses over Afghanistan

2010-02-20T08:56:00.002-07:00

The domestic political implications regarding Afghanistan are challenging and it appears the coalition government in the Netherlands, led by J. P. Balkenende, is losing the support of the Labour Party on this issue. It appears the likely consequence will be an election in May, a year earlier than scheduled.

Here is a link to a British Guardian report.

How this issue plays out in the domestic politics of various NATO countries will be very significant in the year ahead. While every country has a distaste for the ongoing cost of the war -- primarily in human but also in financial terms -- I think most realize that a total withdrawal of all NATO troops a year from now is unlikely to have positive results either for the people of Afghanistan or for international security. The wisdom of our leaders and the collective vision of (primarily) western nations will be put to the test by this issue.