With the whole Quebec thing coming up again, I've had ample opportunity to consider the idea of a nation and how we derive our identities from the nation we call our own.
First of all, I find it interesting that on many survey and census forms in Canada, when people are asked what nationality they come from, Canadians tend to answer with things like French, English, Scottish, Ukrainian, etc. For many Canadians, Canadian doesn't count as a nationality.
But then why do we feel threatened when les Quebecois want to be identified as a nationality? If we, who live in English Canada, don't see ourselves as primarily Canadian, why should we expect the people of Quebec to? Yet, just because Quebecois are different than English Canadians doesn't mean they're not Canadian. Our differences make Canada a much more interesting place to live and our attempts to live at peace with each other are a testament to the rest of the world that in Canada differences are celebrated and we're free to live with whatever culture we bring to the table.
--------------------------------
1 Peter 2:9-10 (NLT)
But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are a kingdom of priests, God's holy nation, his very own possession. This is so you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.
[10] "Once you were not a people;
now you are the people of God.
Once you received none of God's mercy;
now you have received his mercy."
--------------------------------
Christians have the same problem.
First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if, when asked what religion we follow, many of us would respond saying Mennonite, Catholic, Methodist, Reform, etc. For many Christians, Christianity only counts as it's defined by their particular denomination.
We bellyache loudly about how the American Evangelicals are misrepresenting Christianity to the world and giving all of us a bad name. We have endless innuendoes that help us to communicate how we think about other parts of the Christian community (how often has "Yeah, but he's Catholic" counted as a reason for someone's argument to be wrong?). If we can't even get along with others within our own faith, how do we expect to convince others to join it?
If we could at least attempt to celebrate the differences that make the Body of Christ so dynamic and flexible, the discussion that would result and, I'm convinced, the headway we would make would show the world how, in Christ, there is freedom to bring the things that define you as a person into the nation that is God's.
Just like there is room for distinct people groups within the Dominion of Canada, allowing for the differences we find between French, Scottish and Japanese-Canadians, there is room for distinct belief groups within the Nation of God. Having Catholic, Lutheran, and Baptist-Christians is no problem, as long as we remember to include the after-the-hyphen stipulation.
So let's continue to have our differences, openly debate them, and then celebrate the fact that the Body of Christ can be diverse and include all of our idiosyncrasies. Meanwhile let us not lose focus on the cross, which is the thing that unifies us all into the one Nation God meant us to be.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
CMA Syndrome
Back in the mid-1980s when Mikhail Gorbachev first became the General Secretary of the USSR's Communist Party, he brought two ideas to the Soviet Union that were meant to revolutionize the way the Party worked. Perestroika and Glasnost were meant to create an environment of openness within the Party and renew it's sense of responsibility to the people of the USSR.
As a part of the plan, Gorbachev wanted to streamline the entire economic system of Russia. As a result, he started going around to the government establishments (which, under communism, is everything) to see how they could work better.
For example, Gorbachev visited a hospital to see how the treatments were going and if everyone was getting timely care. However, the people in charge of the establishments Gorbachev visited were less than willing to cooperate with his new vision for the country. Instead, the higher-ups were more concerned with showing the General Secretary a well run institution. The hospital Gorbachev visited, instead of showing him its patients, shipped the patients to a former internship camp and replaced them with people off the street that they paid to be their 'patients' for the day. When Gorbachev asked them how their treatment was going, they truthfully said that they were returning home tomorrow. Meanwhile, the actual patients were left freezing in meagre former prisons.
It got so bad that at one point Gorbachev visited a plant in the Ukraine to see how things were going. Even though the plant was struggling with safety issues, they only showed Gorbachev the things that were going well. Looking back, it appears that Gorbachev was sincere in wanting to improve the efficiency of the institutions in the USSR, but the people showing him around thought that if he saw problems, they'd lose their positions of power. So they sugar coated everything, and Gorbachev left Chernobyl unaware of the problems the nuclear plant was experiencing.
In both cases, the people in charge of reporting to Gorbachev suffered from severe cases of what I call Cover My Ass Syndrome. It affects everyone to some extent and makes friendships and relationships much more difficult than they have to be.
Often when there is a problem or a disagreement between people, our first reaction is to point out that it's not our fault. Clearly, the problem is because of something the other person has done. We're not to blame at all.
Right.
Things would go so much more smoothly, I think, if people would stop trying to avoid blame and take responsibility for their actions. Whenever there's a problem between people, it should be the responsibility of each person to identify what he or she has contributed to the conflict. That way, we can avoid the unpleasantness of blaming each other for the problem and feelings won't be hurt by the suggestions that the other person is the only one at fault.
But, unlike the people running Chernobyl, we have to be able and willing to trust that the other person won't take advantage of our willingness to disclose our weaknesses, and that's where this usually falls apart... 'cause we feel we have to Cover Our Asses.
As a part of the plan, Gorbachev wanted to streamline the entire economic system of Russia. As a result, he started going around to the government establishments (which, under communism, is everything) to see how they could work better.
For example, Gorbachev visited a hospital to see how the treatments were going and if everyone was getting timely care. However, the people in charge of the establishments Gorbachev visited were less than willing to cooperate with his new vision for the country. Instead, the higher-ups were more concerned with showing the General Secretary a well run institution. The hospital Gorbachev visited, instead of showing him its patients, shipped the patients to a former internship camp and replaced them with people off the street that they paid to be their 'patients' for the day. When Gorbachev asked them how their treatment was going, they truthfully said that they were returning home tomorrow. Meanwhile, the actual patients were left freezing in meagre former prisons.
It got so bad that at one point Gorbachev visited a plant in the Ukraine to see how things were going. Even though the plant was struggling with safety issues, they only showed Gorbachev the things that were going well. Looking back, it appears that Gorbachev was sincere in wanting to improve the efficiency of the institutions in the USSR, but the people showing him around thought that if he saw problems, they'd lose their positions of power. So they sugar coated everything, and Gorbachev left Chernobyl unaware of the problems the nuclear plant was experiencing.
In both cases, the people in charge of reporting to Gorbachev suffered from severe cases of what I call Cover My Ass Syndrome. It affects everyone to some extent and makes friendships and relationships much more difficult than they have to be.
Often when there is a problem or a disagreement between people, our first reaction is to point out that it's not our fault. Clearly, the problem is because of something the other person has done. We're not to blame at all.
Right.
Things would go so much more smoothly, I think, if people would stop trying to avoid blame and take responsibility for their actions. Whenever there's a problem between people, it should be the responsibility of each person to identify what he or she has contributed to the conflict. That way, we can avoid the unpleasantness of blaming each other for the problem and feelings won't be hurt by the suggestions that the other person is the only one at fault.
But, unlike the people running Chernobyl, we have to be able and willing to trust that the other person won't take advantage of our willingness to disclose our weaknesses, and that's where this usually falls apart... 'cause we feel we have to Cover Our Asses.
Friday, September 01, 2006
On Regrets
We had a discussion last night about how one can go about avoiding the piling up of regrets. It's an interesting topic, because the thought of how a choice affects our futures certainly has bearing on what choice we make. However, I'm convinced that it does us no good to dwell on the things that could go wrong with a decision.
My point of view is that no matter what decision we make, there could be negative consequences. The only way to avoid any possible risk of bad stuff happening because of a decision we make is to avoid making any decisions at all. But that is not at all the way to go about it.
Take, for instance, the parable about the talents. The two guys that doubled their share of the master's money clearly took risks with it. While it worked out for them, I'm sure their investments could have gone very poorly. However, they were rewarded for taking the risk. The third guy, however, puts his talent in the ground and then returned it intact to his master. He was afraid of the consequences should he lose the talent before his master returned. So he avoided making any decisions with it and ended up facing the wrath of his master anyway... but for cowardice.
We could look at a decision and say that both options have the potential to turn out badly. We'd reach the end of our lives and not have to regret the things we did. But more devistating than that, I have no doubt that we'd end up regretting the things we could have done, but never took the chance to do.
This doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we should just jump headlong and make decisions willy-nilly. NO! Consider your options. Balance them against God's Word. But when one or two options come to the fore, don't be afraid of them. Go boldly into a decision with the knowledge that God's Grace will cover you. Sure, things could go badly sometimes, but when they go well you won't have the regret of not having taken the chance.
My point of view is that no matter what decision we make, there could be negative consequences. The only way to avoid any possible risk of bad stuff happening because of a decision we make is to avoid making any decisions at all. But that is not at all the way to go about it.
Take, for instance, the parable about the talents. The two guys that doubled their share of the master's money clearly took risks with it. While it worked out for them, I'm sure their investments could have gone very poorly. However, they were rewarded for taking the risk. The third guy, however, puts his talent in the ground and then returned it intact to his master. He was afraid of the consequences should he lose the talent before his master returned. So he avoided making any decisions with it and ended up facing the wrath of his master anyway... but for cowardice.
We could look at a decision and say that both options have the potential to turn out badly. We'd reach the end of our lives and not have to regret the things we did. But more devistating than that, I have no doubt that we'd end up regretting the things we could have done, but never took the chance to do.
This doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that we should just jump headlong and make decisions willy-nilly. NO! Consider your options. Balance them against God's Word. But when one or two options come to the fore, don't be afraid of them. Go boldly into a decision with the knowledge that God's Grace will cover you. Sure, things could go badly sometimes, but when they go well you won't have the regret of not having taken the chance.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
On Risk-Taking
"Everything I could lose here, You've already won." - Downhere
I've never been the greatest at making decisions. Whenever my family ate at resaurants, I would always be the last to order, because until then, I usually couldn't decide on what I wanted to eat. Now, what one eats at a restaurant has very little bearing on much else in one's life (barring food-poisoning incidents or other such unfortunate occurances). But, from time to time, one must make a decision that affects more than his taste buds and culinary satisfaction.
Being a person predisposed to mathematical/logical reasoning, I usually like to have a series of steps I can use to solve every problem. I've clearly pointed out that I'm not terribly good at making these decisions, so I obviously haven't figured out what all those steps are (or maybe there aren't even steps... but I'd still like to think there are). Even if there aren't steps for making decision, there's definitely one thing a person must consider in every case.
Even when trying to decide what to eat, one of the considerations is how much each potential dish is going to cost. I know if I'm wavering between two entrees, I'll automatically choose the one with the lowest price (maybe I'm just too Mennonite, but still...).
"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' ... In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:28-30, 33)
Jesus asks us to give our whole lives to him in order to be his disciple. It's a huge risk. If we give up everything and get no return, there's obviously nothing left. Thankfully, we can rely on the promises of faithfulness we've got from God that everything will work together for the good of those who love him. We don't need to hold on to anything because God's got our best interests at heart.
Compared to that, then, what risk is too difficult? The risk of embarrassment? Poverty? Hunger? Death? If everything we have is already in the hands of God, there is nothing we can lose... it's tucked away in the most secure safety deposit box ever... heaven.
With that in mind, the step of counting the cost of any decision comes down to this: Does the risk I'm about to take (and there is risk in any decision) leave me trusting God to pull me through, or does it require me to get through of my own strength?
I've never been the greatest at making decisions. Whenever my family ate at resaurants, I would always be the last to order, because until then, I usually couldn't decide on what I wanted to eat. Now, what one eats at a restaurant has very little bearing on much else in one's life (barring food-poisoning incidents or other such unfortunate occurances). But, from time to time, one must make a decision that affects more than his taste buds and culinary satisfaction.
Being a person predisposed to mathematical/logical reasoning, I usually like to have a series of steps I can use to solve every problem. I've clearly pointed out that I'm not terribly good at making these decisions, so I obviously haven't figured out what all those steps are (or maybe there aren't even steps... but I'd still like to think there are). Even if there aren't steps for making decision, there's definitely one thing a person must consider in every case.
Even when trying to decide what to eat, one of the considerations is how much each potential dish is going to cost. I know if I'm wavering between two entrees, I'll automatically choose the one with the lowest price (maybe I'm just too Mennonite, but still...).
"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' ... In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:28-30, 33)
Jesus asks us to give our whole lives to him in order to be his disciple. It's a huge risk. If we give up everything and get no return, there's obviously nothing left. Thankfully, we can rely on the promises of faithfulness we've got from God that everything will work together for the good of those who love him. We don't need to hold on to anything because God's got our best interests at heart.
Compared to that, then, what risk is too difficult? The risk of embarrassment? Poverty? Hunger? Death? If everything we have is already in the hands of God, there is nothing we can lose... it's tucked away in the most secure safety deposit box ever... heaven.
With that in mind, the step of counting the cost of any decision comes down to this: Does the risk I'm about to take (and there is risk in any decision) leave me trusting God to pull me through, or does it require me to get through of my own strength?
Saturday, February 25, 2006
On Freedoms
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom."
This is a quote from Clarence Darrow, an American lawyer from the late-18/early-1900s. In light of the whole hulabaloo over the cartoons in Danish newspapers, his assertion is even more applicable than it was before.
Typically, westerners would look at this quote and conclude that if Muslims wanted us to respect their religion, they should start by respecting our culture. If they weren't attacking institutions indicative of western values and ideals, we wouldn't be bothering them about their religion. Therefore, they should stop burning flags and sending suicide bombers into marketplaces if they want respect from us.
I say that's all fine and dandy, unless you consider yourself a Christian.
Christians, if we truly wish to be like Christ, are called to think of others ahead of ourselves. If we really do that, we'll inevitably also think of others' rights ahead of our own. In that case, it's our responsibility to respect the freedom of religion of Muslims before expecting them to respect our freedom of expression.
In general, that is one of the problems I see in society today. Rights, and our mentality that we have to protect our rights at all costs. But, for those who want to protect their rights and freedoms, I refer you back to the beginning of this entry. The only way to ensure your rights is to first make sure you protect the rights of others.
Therefore, when another person infringes on your rights, don't respond by retaliating and violating one of theirs. Rather, continue to protect their rights, thereby convincing them to respect yours.
This is a quote from Clarence Darrow, an American lawyer from the late-18/early-1900s. In light of the whole hulabaloo over the cartoons in Danish newspapers, his assertion is even more applicable than it was before.
Typically, westerners would look at this quote and conclude that if Muslims wanted us to respect their religion, they should start by respecting our culture. If they weren't attacking institutions indicative of western values and ideals, we wouldn't be bothering them about their religion. Therefore, they should stop burning flags and sending suicide bombers into marketplaces if they want respect from us.
I say that's all fine and dandy, unless you consider yourself a Christian.
Christians, if we truly wish to be like Christ, are called to think of others ahead of ourselves. If we really do that, we'll inevitably also think of others' rights ahead of our own. In that case, it's our responsibility to respect the freedom of religion of Muslims before expecting them to respect our freedom of expression.
In general, that is one of the problems I see in society today. Rights, and our mentality that we have to protect our rights at all costs. But, for those who want to protect their rights and freedoms, I refer you back to the beginning of this entry. The only way to ensure your rights is to first make sure you protect the rights of others.
Therefore, when another person infringes on your rights, don't respond by retaliating and violating one of theirs. Rather, continue to protect their rights, thereby convincing them to respect yours.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Voting as a Christian
I was pretty much told this weekend that if I'm a Christian I have to vote Conservative. The person saying it wasn't quite that blunt about it, but he went on about how our leaders have to be the moral guides of the country and if we don't have Christians in government our society will all fall to pieces.
I'm quite sure that morally, I agree with Conservative policy more than others, simply because it does reflect what I understand to be Biblical principles. But, I also think it is not the job of the government to dictate the moral fibre of a country. Morality is a personal choice that each person has to struggle with. When governments step in the way, it just serves to make things even more complicated than they already are.
Yet, it is the custom for governments these days to try to legislate their ideas of what a moral society looks like. In contrast, even the apostle Paul said that everything is permissable, but not all things are beneficial. In my opinion, it's not the government's job to make immorality illegal. If they want to support those who are, by their definition, moral, that's up to them, but legality is somewhat beyond their realm.
What is their job? Making it possible for people to take care of themselves and each other. Provide an environment in which people have the means to acquire food, clothing, shelter, etc... and quite honestly, all three of our major parties plan on doing that. They plan on doing it in different ways and I'm basing my vote on which plan seems the most likely to work, but I won't be devistated if one of the other parties wins because in the long run, I've got a really big Benevolent Dictator looking after me.
I'm quite sure that morally, I agree with Conservative policy more than others, simply because it does reflect what I understand to be Biblical principles. But, I also think it is not the job of the government to dictate the moral fibre of a country. Morality is a personal choice that each person has to struggle with. When governments step in the way, it just serves to make things even more complicated than they already are.
Yet, it is the custom for governments these days to try to legislate their ideas of what a moral society looks like. In contrast, even the apostle Paul said that everything is permissable, but not all things are beneficial. In my opinion, it's not the government's job to make immorality illegal. If they want to support those who are, by their definition, moral, that's up to them, but legality is somewhat beyond their realm.
What is their job? Making it possible for people to take care of themselves and each other. Provide an environment in which people have the means to acquire food, clothing, shelter, etc... and quite honestly, all three of our major parties plan on doing that. They plan on doing it in different ways and I'm basing my vote on which plan seems the most likely to work, but I won't be devistated if one of the other parties wins because in the long run, I've got a really big Benevolent Dictator looking after me.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Fear of the Other
I just finished watching my second movie of the week (that must be a record for me) and was startled by an observation. The two movies were X2: X-Men Unite and Hotel Rwanda. Now, at first glance, one might say that these are two very different movies, but I challenge us to look at little bit deeper.
At a risk of revealing things in these movies to those who have not seen them (I don't think I do, but this serves as a warning anyway) X2 is mainly about humans and mutants who don't think they can live harmoniously together. Many humans don't trust the mutants and many mutants return the favour. Trouble ensues as some try to kill the others. In Hotel Rwanda, the story is much the same. Substitute Hutus for humans and Tutsis for mutants (I am not saying Tutsis are mutants... that would be gross misquotage) and you have the same story.
We see movies like these and we immediately think to ourselves that we would never do something like that. We're liberal-minded people who are far more accepting of different people than the people in the movies. Are we really?
At one point in X2, someone mentions the 'mutant problem' to which Wolverine is quick to reply 'what problem?' In the humans' eyes, that there were mutants meant that there was a problem. How often, though, do we refer to people different than ourselves as 'problems:' the problem of teenage parents, the problem of homosexuality, the problem of murderers? More often than we could count, I'm sure.
But what about some of the other problems: lying, greed, pride, lust... where do those fit in? The answer from God is that all the problems are equally problematic. They all end up in our spiritual deaths. No one problem is bigger than another. Yet we rarely, if ever, treat them that way. We're so quick to draw lines in the sand saying the people on the other side commit sins that are worse than ours and therefore we have no obligation to associate with them (God help them). In reality, the line we try to imitate is so far beyond us, showing that our sins are not at all worthy of God and He has no obligation to associate with us. Yet He does.
To God, we are the 'other' that he cannot trust to do His will. Fortunately, His will transcends anything we could do to mess it up, but that's another topic for another day. He has every right to do away with us all. Yet, we are His creation, He loves us, and does everything to draw us closer to Him.
And that's grace.
If only we could treat our 'others' the same.
At a risk of revealing things in these movies to those who have not seen them (I don't think I do, but this serves as a warning anyway) X2 is mainly about humans and mutants who don't think they can live harmoniously together. Many humans don't trust the mutants and many mutants return the favour. Trouble ensues as some try to kill the others. In Hotel Rwanda, the story is much the same. Substitute Hutus for humans and Tutsis for mutants (I am not saying Tutsis are mutants... that would be gross misquotage) and you have the same story.
We see movies like these and we immediately think to ourselves that we would never do something like that. We're liberal-minded people who are far more accepting of different people than the people in the movies. Are we really?
At one point in X2, someone mentions the 'mutant problem' to which Wolverine is quick to reply 'what problem?' In the humans' eyes, that there were mutants meant that there was a problem. How often, though, do we refer to people different than ourselves as 'problems:' the problem of teenage parents, the problem of homosexuality, the problem of murderers? More often than we could count, I'm sure.
But what about some of the other problems: lying, greed, pride, lust... where do those fit in? The answer from God is that all the problems are equally problematic. They all end up in our spiritual deaths. No one problem is bigger than another. Yet we rarely, if ever, treat them that way. We're so quick to draw lines in the sand saying the people on the other side commit sins that are worse than ours and therefore we have no obligation to associate with them (God help them). In reality, the line we try to imitate is so far beyond us, showing that our sins are not at all worthy of God and He has no obligation to associate with us. Yet He does.
To God, we are the 'other' that he cannot trust to do His will. Fortunately, His will transcends anything we could do to mess it up, but that's another topic for another day. He has every right to do away with us all. Yet, we are His creation, He loves us, and does everything to draw us closer to Him.
And that's grace.
If only we could treat our 'others' the same.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)