Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

I've blogged about my concerns regarding climate change before. Now a recent incident involving the Climate Research Unit located at the University of East Anglia has revealed to the world that the data and methodology used by that institution to create reports intended inform policymakers was corrupt, spurious and deeply flawed - as were the conclusions in those reports.

I was tipped to this by John Gormely on his radio show today where he was interviewing Kate McMillan, author of the weblog "Small Dead Animals". Kate has done a superb job of gathering the most useful links in this emerging story under the ongoing title - "The Sound of All Hell Breaking Loose". If you care at all about the Earth and our economic and political future you need to read up on this - and then remember it at the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that.

The real tragedy in all of this will be the huge damage done to the scientific community in general. If it results in a "cry wolf" response from the public world-wide (as I suspect it will) then I can safely predict humanity will fall victim to a true catastrophe soon - even though we will likely be warned about it. We just won't believe the messenger.

The image linked to this post is not the property of the author and is used without permission with purely illustrative intent and with no intent to defraud or injure the original owner.

Obama

OK. He's now officially the 44th president of the USA. The first black American president. And I must admit he is also the most eloquent and engaging political public speaker I have heard in my lifetime. He's saying all of the right things. I pray he and his administration will also do the right things. And like many of my fellow Flatlanders, I sincerely hope his influence will rub off on our leaders here north of the 49th parallel.

But, I will still contend that salvation will not ultimately come to us from either 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or 24 Sussex Drive, or the UN or from any human agency.

Yet, I am hopeful that the new American president will be a leader who will exert his influence for the common good of our world. And to that end I will say, and pray, "Godspeed, President Obama."

On the Road to Forgiveness

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set Canada on the road to finding forgiveness between First Nations People and the culture (our culture) that has dominated and damaged them for so long. The range of reaction to his apology on our behalf read in the House of Commons yesterday was to be expected. Thankfully, even the most negative reactions I have heard so far have at least acknowledged the open honesty of Harpers words, even if some could not bring themselves to accept them, yet.

It is now that the Gospel has a real chance to influence the path our country will take in the coming months and years. Colossians 3:13 says in part, "Forgive as the Lord forgave you."

We have an example, a model, a benchmark to reach for in our pursuit of forgiveness and reconciliation. We need to pray for and work for nothing less.

If we do follow Christ's example our destination will be true Shalom.

Of Rhetoric and Reaction

You just can't find sober, reasoned reporting in the media anymore. Well maybe you can, but it isn't coming from the major sources in English Canada anyway. The tragic story of the Parvez family of Mississauga is just the latest example. The news reports in all of the major media, as this example demonstrates, go way beyond "just the facts" to include speculation about how this sad event will become a major cultural "flash-point" issue. They hope. It would give them something to flog mercilessly to sell more papers and boost their viewer/listener share ratings.

My fundamental source for "what's goin' on" offers this short, but well reasoned opinion. Like a breath of fresh air it reminded me that at the root of this story is a human tragedy that has no real connection to social and cultural clashes. A certain number of white Anglo-Saxon protestant fathers, or Catholic Latino ones, or African atheist ones, or Asian Taoist ones have been, from time immemorial, and will continue to be, treating their daughters, wives and sons with violence for any number of perceived acts of disobedience. And every so often their anger will take one of them too far.

That the media should spin this story into a public debate over cultural and religious differences that cause social friction is the crime upon the crime. It should be viewed in the same way we view shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. I am a free speech advocate, but the opinions aren't being carefully kept on the Op-Ed page anymore. The "spin", the "opinion", the "agenda" and the (often way too narrow) "perspective" is everywhere in the media these days. And this constant barrage of sensational fear-mongering, speculation and rhetoric is having an effect.

I don't know about you, but I am encountering more and more people who view people of different cultures and races in stereotypical ways. I am hearing more and more broad-brush-stroke statements that begin with "those people", "they all" and "they believe". While I know the truth is that the uniformity of opinion, perspective, values and beliefs in any group in the world is the same as the uniformity in the tribe I belong to - which means not uniform at all.

If there was a common human experience in the Parvez story it began with the common human emotion of anger. We all know it. We all experience it. We all have hurt others and been hurt by it. Many of us fear it. Most of us respect it. We all try to control it. Almost all of us understand its destructive potential. Wisdom says, "In your anger do not sin." I don't care what god you believe in or what religion you practice or what culture you belong to or what tribe are your ancestors - these words are universally true. Because we all know what happens when we follow our selfish and dark impulses down a road fueled by anger. It NEVER ends well.

Too many will accept the rhetoric of the media in this story as reasonable and true. Too many will react to it and the results will be a further escalation of the cultural and social tensions we are already experiencing far to often. But I won't, and you don't have to either. We must remember that wisdom also says, "there, but for the grace of God, go I".

So if we're going to react to the rhetoric, let's go in the other direction. Let's agree that until each of us personally knows a person of another culture, race or religion we don't know anything about that group - and even then we only know one person. And one person, or one family, does not define a culture, a religion or a race. If you believe that then you better be ready to be the example to the entire world for whomever you represent - to be the one person the rest of the world measures everyone of your culture, race, religion and country by. Are you ready to accept that responsibility?

I thought not.

'Nuff said!

Roll The Bones

Recently a good friend of mine sent me the following email message:

Hi Brian,

How much would you pay for a ticket on a chance to drive a BMW or another fancy car for one year…if only 150 to 200 tickets were sold? Curious.

Aloysius P Tackhammer

(he asked me to protect his identity)

My friend is a Christian as am I so this was my response:

Hi Al,

Generally speaking gambling is frowned upon in Christian circles – has to do with that nasty bit at the foot of the cross with the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothes. I know that raffles and other pseudo-gambling activities are often part and parcel of church life. That being said, I guess it would depend upon the cause this "raffle" would be supporting. If I was interested – and the car in question was a Cadillac STS-V (see link below) – then I might get involved.

http://gmcanada.com/gm/english/vehicles/cadillac/vseries/feature01

I guess $100 is the most I'd pay. I hope that helps you out.

Shalom,

Brian

P.S. Do you think a Baptist pastor driving a brand new Cadillac V-8 BMW killer is a bit "over the top" – or would it be a good advertisement for following Christ?

As you can see we kid around a bit, but Al didn't leave it there.

Hey,

It could be the health and welfare gospel that some US TV preachers peddle. Really sad.

Is it biblical or by tradition that gambling is frowned upon? We would call it a contest because that's what a radio station would call it.

Al

So I decided to give him a fuller response.

Hi Al,

It's Biblical. The disciples drew lots to replace Judas Iscariot because they couldn't decide between two candidates, and lots were cast in the OT when leaders couldn't choose between two alternatives that both had merit. These appear to have been moments of allowing God to work through chance, as it were, to affect the outcome of a situation. Basically it's a coin toss between two equally acceptable alternatives. The only scene we see in the NT of gambling for profit is the scene I referred to earlier of the Roman soldiers casting lots at the foot of the cross for Christ's clothing. Lots were probably dice.

The Biblical position is that gambling takes advantage of people by giving one person wealth at the expense of others. Truthfully, only the ones running the games truly benefit. "The House always wins." It is also true that raffles, Bingo and other "soft" forms of gambling have been a cultural part of church life for as long as fund raising has been an issue. The prime motivation for individuals participating in any of these activities is usually the hope of having an outcome that is very beneficial for them. Greed is the issue – or the love of money – which Christ called "the root of all evil".

It is true that I can't point to a specific passage of Scripture that says, "Thou shalt not gamble." However, we are all well aware of the personal and social cost attached to this "vice" that has gone beyond being a "bad habit" and has become a Government and community revenue stream at nearly every level. It's hard to reconcile broken relationships, shattered families and wasted lives with the "good" causes that use and promote gambling as a means to a better community for us all. And don't even get me started about the propensity for First Nations to see gambling as one of, if not the only, way for them to develop a viable economy for themselves – even though one could consider it a cosmic form of "payback" for the abuses these people have suffered.

I know it's hard to imagine children's extracurricular activities being able to exist without "casino nights" or local charities remaining solvent without the income provided by lotteries, raffles and 50/50 ticket sales at local sporting events. But the truth is "there is no free lunch". Somebody wins – many, many, many more lose. The hypocrisy is that gambling – however seemingly benign and helpful for good causes – is only really easily tolerated by the middle and upper classes. For the poor and marginalized it is always a cruel game that preys upon their meager estate and their desperate hope for a bit of the economic freedom you and I take for granted.

If there isn't a passage in the Bible that speaks directly against gambling then at least the miracles of the feeding of the multitudes (yes, it happened more than once) certainly speak against the ethos of the gambling mentality and human selfishness. The economic truth of the Kingdom of Heaven isn't like human economic structures. The Bible teaches us that if we share selflessly in Jesus Christ there is more than enough for everybody. Scripture says that God "owns the cattle on a thousand hills" – an OT image that would have imparted the concept of wealth beyond human comprehension or ability to handle.

You need to know that I'm not judging you or the methods you might use to do good work. Paul also said "everything is permissible" although he also said "not everything is beneficial". Bake sales and rummage sales often won't cut it when it comes to fund raising for critical needs and we need to remember that we also mustn't judge those who don't follow Jesus for behaving as they do. But I think we also need to ask ourselves serious questions about the methods we choose to use in our pursuit of doing what we believe to be the will of God. Sometimes we may have to forgo what seems to be an easy and effective strategy and rely on God to provide what we need. We may have to limit ourselves to what we will do in order to allow God to do what only He can do. Jesus did say "the way is narrow".

Shalom,

Brian

And Al replied:

Hi Brian,

So it's not the gambling but the MOTIVE behind the gambling that causes the problem. E.g. Greed. Middle and upper class might donate just because it's a good cause or they might really be greedy. The poor cannot participate. Of course, there's the whole addiction element too.

There is a part of me that would rather just auction the car off...but then only the rich will get a very good deal and get a crack at driving a fancy car while the middle class are driving Corollas.

Al

What do you think?

Shalom

Matrimony, The State & The Church

After being AWOL for many weeks I am returning with a serious post. Arguably not the best strategy to increase my readership, but I stand by my blog tagline.

The following is an excerpt from my ordination paper. This issue became clearer to me as I attended a remarkable Christian wedding this weekend. The worshipful atmosphere that permeated the entire ceremony threw into stark incongruity the moment of the "signing of the registry" - the insertion of the state into what was otherwise an entirely Christian service of worship.

While the comments that follow are written from the Christian, and particularly Protestant perspective, I hope that one can insert the name of any religious confession that is in agreement with the orthodox Christian view of marriage and maintain the same argument.

Excerpt

Recent changes in Canadian marriage law have raised the issue of the relationship between the state and the church in this matter. The historical and current position is that the state, for the purposes of legal recognition and establishment, licenses and sanctions marriage in Canada. The state, at the provincial level registers specific persons charged with the solemnization of this contract. These persons are state employees – justices of the peace – and clergy - who are not state employees, but are "agents" of the state in this particular matter.

The changes in recent court decisions as to which individuals the state will allow to enter into marriage have caused considerable concern within Christian denominations and churches as well as other religious groups. The issue, as I understand it, centers on whether or not denominations and clergy can and/or should remain registered by the state to solemnize marriages if they are compelled to do so for persons whom their religious beliefs would not allow.

The first issue for me is whether or not any Christian – clergy or otherwise – is compelled by teaching in Scripture to officiate marriage ceremonies under any circumstances. My study of this issue suggests the answer is “no”. Before the Reformation marriage was, and still is, one of the “sacraments” of the Roman & Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches - a position the protestant reformers rejected. Indeed, the North American Baptist Conference (with which the church I serve is associated) – and most protestant confessions for that matter – recognizes only two “ordinances” – those being “communion” and “baptism”. Therefore the protestant Christian church and clergy’s involvement in the state-sanctioned solemnization of marriage has been and is a matter of cultural convention – not church doctrine.

While our understanding of God’s will through our study of Scripture directs us to celebrate and practice marriage as a specific, God-ordained relationship - when in the proper circumstances - between a man and a woman, we cannot impose this view and practice upon the state if it should deem otherwise. This is also the same principle in the matter of what the state allows as reasons for divorce.

One serious theological question raised by the church being involved in the recognition or solemnization of marriage is that the rite generally includes the declaration of vows by the participants – this in seeming defiance of Christ’s admonishment against taking oaths:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:33-37 - TNIV

I suggest that we carefully consider whether our Christian marriage ceremonies contain “oaths” or is our understanding that these "vows" are statements of intent – a “yes” or a “no” - and thus acceptable.

While I affirm that the church, as a community, has the freedom to celebrate the union of a man and woman in marriage in circumstances that are in obedience to the prescriptions of Scripture, there seems to me to be no compelling reason for Bible-believing Christian churches or clergy to do so for any union that does not meet the Lord’s standards. To do otherwise would have the appearance of giving tacit approval to this behavior in the name of the Lord - this hardly seems to be something that could glorify His name or be seen as intellectually and spiritually honest in view of Biblical truth and church doctrine.

We must be careful in how we discuss and present this position to those outside the church and those within the church who may not have thought this through fully. Individual Christians should attend and celebrate marriages with people who are their friends, regardless of the couple's religious practice or the circumstances of the union. We are not called to reject or abandon those who do not follow God’s teaching and direction. We are to witness to them and treat them with love and grace. Relationships are important and grace must be our method in all interactions.

Having said that, the church is not required by law to agree with, affirm, support or enact the policy of the state in the matter of marriage unless it is in a legal relationship with the state. Indeed, the law clearly states that it is now illegal for a government licensed person or organization to refuse to provide a legal good or service to any individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. Churches who maintain their clergy’s legal status as registered marriage officiants, but hold to policy that would reject performing marriages for couples the state deems as legal, are in effect saying that they would disobey the law as established by duly elected and appointed officials. Ironically in such a situation the church or clergy’s “yes” would not actually be “yes”.

The church and its clergy should recognize and celebrate what God is doing in the lives of believers who come together in marriage in a way that is a worshipful and obedient corporate act before God. As long as the state requires a ceremony or rite before a registered official in order to legally recognize a marriage then Christian couples can do that also, if they choose to, before state officials at another time. Or even at the same time if the Justice of the Peace is agreeable to witnessing and officially recognizing the wedding. Wedding planners may get headaches trying to coordinate clergy and a J.O.T.P. but that’s why they get paid the "big bucks".

As a clergyperson, relinquishing my “official” status as a marriage officiant would be a powerful personal public spiritual statement, at least to me if no one else. It could only be done with the full support of the leadership and congregation of the church I serve. The political and social realities of our day will, at some point, most likely force churches and their clergy to face these tough decisions.

In essence I believe I am arguing for a clearer separation of the church and the state in our country. As long as churches maintain state-sanctioned and registered clergy for the purpose of the legal solemnization of marriage they have an obligation to observe and comply with the law of the land. But, the churches must understand that they are not compelled by law to maintain this relationship. Therefore those churches that do maintain this legal relationship should, in my opinion, honor the law of the land and honestly admit that they have placed it above the law and teachings of God.

The state does not agree with the position of the majority of the Christian churches in this matter. Such differences of position are allowable and, I believe, desirable in a truly democratic society that supports the concept of freedom of religion. If the churches of Jesus Christ choose not to be agents of the state in this matter I believe they will become free to follow Him in obedience and also to continue to be obedient and lawful members, albeit dissenting ones in this matter, of our society.

To do otherwise, in my opinion, is to try to "have our cake and eat it, too."

Shalom

One is the Loneliest Number

On my friend Lee Distad's blog site is an article about the imminent closure of the iconic Sam the Record Man on Yonge Street in Toronto. The current management of the store comment that they are forced to accept that the day of the recorded music retailer is drawing to a close as alternative forms of distribution, primarily based in the internet, are taking over.

While consumerism is a issue with deep, difficult and wide ranging implications for people of faith, commerce in and of itself is not sinful - only out attitudes and actions stemming from those attitudes can make our shopping choices sinful. I see the loss of Sam's as a cultural loss that goes beyond the music world as it sends us signals about what may draw us into the public marketplace, or what may make us decide to remain cloistered within our private spaces. As I opine in the comments section on Lee's blog, portions of our culture and society are becoming less and less communal pursuits and more and more individual pursuits. This raises troubling questions regarding what sort of society and culture we may be moving towards.

I am ambivalent about what the power of the internet is doing in regard to our communal/individual experience. I watch my son regularly communing with his peer group from his desk as he simultaneously chats with anywhere up to half a dozen friends. I can keep in touch with my sons in Edmonton, friends all over the place, missionaries in other countries and forge new relationships through the power of email, blogs, text messaging and even voice and video. But at the same time the same forces are beginning to limit some of my interactions on other levels.

The physical marketplace has served a vital social and cultural function for all of recorded human history and we may be on the doorstep of the first generation we know of that will live without this physical presence as a dominant force in their lives. As more and more business can be transacted online, as more and more relationships can be engaged in online, people will face a life with increasingly less need for direct physical human contact. If, as some modern era historians suggest, the television drove those in Western developed countries (and eventually everybody else as the technology became available) into their private homes, killing some forms of communal interaction and recreation, what then might the internet do in this regard to further our isolation?

A story in today's news reports about the tragic deaths of an east cost mother with MS and her disabled daughter, who both died unnoticed in their own home, may be a disturbing symptom of what is emerging as the "new culture" of personal physical isolation. I have to deal with this issue personally as someone I care for deeply, living in another city, is experiencing loneliness and some isolation. Do my interactions over the internet with this person help or hinder their ability and desire to go out and have face to face relationships with other people? Is the telephone better because it engages another sense besides sight, or is it merely the precursor to our internet chat interactions? Do my online relationships interfere with my "meatspace" ones. What does a word like "meatspace" and its creation say about emerging attitudes towards physical interaction?

There is a deep spiritual significance to physical presence in relationship as well as Scriptural exhortation to maintain such relationships. Christ came physically. Being God there were much more efficient and effective options available to Him to bring the message of the Gospel to the world, including individual, personal revelation transmitted directly to each living person. But efficiency and expediency were not the point of the revelation of God through Jesus. The point is more closely wrapped up in our created nature and God's ultimate intention for us. We are "Created for Community" as the title of the book by late Stanley J. Grenz proclaims.

We will be able to find new ways to experience and enhance community through the potential of the internet because I believe Christ will grant us the wisdom to do so. He wants the internet to be redeemed as He wants all of creation to be redeemed, but the potential of our sinful nature will also mean that we must be on guard against allowing damage to happen to our relationships through this same medium. There will also be forces that will harness the influence of the internet to twist its potential for good into something that will damage our humanity. The more obvious uses in this vein are already well established (pornography, gambling, rampant consumerism, fraud, theft, infidelity, etc.). We are now beginning to face more subtle issues and challenges that are just as, if not more dangerous. The influence of the internet is shaping our common cultural experiences - the public marketplace for one - and we do not seem to have the power to control such shifts.

That being the case, we must then decide how we will respond. We cannot seek a path through anachronistic entrenchment of bygone church customs and practices. We need new and creative approaches that recognize and reflect the reality of our lives today. This will take more brain power and prayer than any of us can muster individually - again we see the power of the community becoming more important.

If the very foundation of community is at risk, then we who are "created for community" have interesting and challenging days ahead.

Shalom.