Geese: crazy, lazy or smart?

Winter is well settled in Lethbridge, and the Canada geese are still around. This is not unusual; it seems to be the same every winter. They hang around, perhaps waiting for the last dog to be hung, and now find themselves hung out to dry, freeze, starve . . . I see them now on the grain field opposite, hundreds hunkered down, their dark bodies against the mottled stubble and snow covered field.

Earlier, I watched them fly in, coming in many large and small flocks, all making for the same destination. They glide in, more gracefully than a space shuttle, their wings with a characteristic droop, sometimes making a half circle into the wind. A sharp fluttering of the wings and they are down; no runway needed for these space travellers!

With the ability to fly to warmer climes that we can’t without a lot of fuss, why stay around here? Are they fooled by all the talk of global warming and expect Arizona in Alberta? It’s not just the cold and shortage of food, the frozen ponds fool them. The elegant glide to water finishes up as an inelegant slide on ice, with nothing but their companion’s bodies to provide crash stops. I wonder what they make of that!

Of course, for some they are a pest. Vancouver’s beaches and walks become covered in what they no longer need, and they make occasional concerted attacks on inquisitive, defenceless humans who venture too close. Can’t (perish the thought) cull them, they are protected like the sturgeon, although I’m sure they’d make good eating. After all, it is Christmas, it’d give the turkeys a rest and we could get our goose cooked!

For all that, I can’t think of any Albertans that would be glad to see them go—either south for some sunshine, or onto a dinner plate. They are an elegant bird, more so than the ungainly big beaked pelicans we see here in the summer. They probably fly south, their feathers may be white but I’m not sure that makes them amenable to snow. Are they more sensible than the geese?

But why fly when you don’t need to? Birds, apparently, don’t fly for fun, or so I learned at a recent visit to a local bird sanctuary. They fly for food or migration, but apart from that, they’re happy to laze around. But these geese may not have heard that. They gear up their autumnal bodies for a long flight, their V-shaped formations passing my window like streamers on a windy day, and then decide not to go. All that wasted effort.

But then, Ann has me walking every day, not to go somewhere, but just to walk. And I don’t walk (or fly if I could) for fun. Apparently, it helps keep my body healthy. Perhaps that’s what the geese are after—more smart than lazy; no flies or fat on those birds! So perhaps crazy is out as well. I have to accept they know what they are doing, just like us . .

At least we think we know what we’re about, but sometimes I’m not so sure. We are probably more lazy and crazy than smart, and if we could get into those little goose heads, we might learn a thing or two. That’s unlikely, so let’s just watch the geese; it’s good for the soul.

Friday, December 11, 2009

And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Luke 1:46-48

There is a world of cultural distance between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Barack Obama, president of the United States. Yet they have one thing in common: peace! Mary gave birth to the Prince of Peace, and Obama obtained the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, both Barack Obama and the Prince of Peace also have one thing in common: recognizing the existence of evil!

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is controversial. He must be the first person to receive a noble prize of any sort in hope of what he will do, rather than for the little he has done. Furthermore, his acceptance speech was far from peaceful, warning that war will always be possible, if not inevitable, as long as evil exists.

In this, he is probably closer to George W. Bush than he, or his followers would like to be. Bush’s phrase, “axis of evil” referred to the nations of North Korea and Iran, which remain a thorn in the American president’s side. Even more dangerous, the Islamists pose a worldwide threat that even Obama claimed in his speech could not be tamed by negotiation.

The difference between tyranny and Islamism is the difference between life and death. The leaders of rogue nations, usually tyrants must maintain life to accomplish their goals. Their death frequently ends confrontation. The danger from Islamism is greater because life is less important than death. Not only is death preferable if it will achieve what they consider God’s goals, martyrdom serves to reinforce and perpetuate the belief in others.

Tyrants will negotiate if it furthers their cause in some way. Note the on again, off again, overtures of North Korea and Iran to inch their way to their goals; for them, negotiation is a verbal war, not a means to peace. But for the Islamists, negotiation with the enemy is apostasy, death the preferred alternative. They must universally enforce their version of God’s will. To achieve it, any sacrifice of themselves or any device against the infidels who thwart that will is acceptable and necessary.

The liberal concept of evil is simply a correctable human defect (recall the name of the Canadian prison system: “Corrections Canada”!) This idea is naive, for it assumes that evil men are reasonable at heart and can be talked out of their intentions. Too often, as history has shown, the talk of rogues is simply a smokescreen to cover continued preparation toward their goals.

Christianity teaches us two things about evil. First, evil is a spiritual force to which we are all susceptible and thus available to the evil one’s manipulation; especially if his goals coincide with our desires. This dictates that evil is always present. Secondly, the Prince of Peace will only bring about peace on earth by force, not by softening hearts, Psalm 2:8–9 and Revelation 19:14–15.

That does not make the returning Christ a tyrant who enforces his will upon all. He will finally deal with the source and manifestations of evil in order to ensure a permanent and stable peace for those who genuinely desire it. His rule will ensure that, "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid,” Micah 4:4.

In the meantime, we have the comfort of peace in our hearts because we have peace with God. We join the chorus of generations thanking Mary for her commitment, which enabled the birth of the Prince of Peace. He is Immanuel, God with us, come to dwell in the hearts of all who seek him.

Tuesday December 1, 2009

But as for me, it is good to be near God, Psalm 73:28.

Well, after a day of nail-clipped joy, it’s time to return to the other item that reminded me of eternity yesterday. Canada.com is my news source early each morning, and yesterday an article suggested that heaven is a preferred story for the crowd than hell! A study of 35,000 people taken across national, religious and ethnic lines, found that “in the presence of the ‘largest possible stakes,’ [heaven or hell] rewards are more persuasive than punishments” by a three to one margin.

Hardly earth shattering findings. In fact, common sense could have easily arrived at the same general idea. The idea of hell is dreadful, and just as we turn off television images of child suffering, we turn off hell. If we are trying to beat hell, what better way than to ignore it, believe it doesn’t exist, or even better, that no afterlife exists. In fact, an Ipsos-Reid poll shows that while nearly half of Canadians believe in some form of afterlife—presumably the nicer variety—less than half that number believes in hell.

That means that over half of Canadians believe we die like dogs—once buried, it’s all over. Or, even if some afterlife exists without hell so everyone made heaven on his or her own terms, who would want it? But the experience of life on earth is a preview of both heaven and hell, and the closer to the hell side we live here, the less we will believe this life is our ultimate destiny.

Probably the greatest evidence of life after death is least recognized, yet the most obvious: it is the ability to conceive of an afterlife. If there is none, we wouldn’t be programmed to consider it, just as if there was no God, the idea wouldn’t cross our minds. But history shows that a search for God and preparation for an afterlife has always been a primary human occupation. Modern human rejection of these things is more rebellious snobbery than intelligence.

Disbelief in an afterlife is a vain attempt to discard any future accountability. If there is no afterlife, there is no real justice or moral accountability, which means that if we can use evil to our benefit in this life and get away with it, we’ve won. Human justice is at best rough, at worst non-existent; not much hope for a heavenly life here. The example of this life is that heaven and hell exist together. Heaven and hell in the next life are simply the separation of the two realities that exist on earth.

In the end, God determines an afterlife, even heaven and hell, and places the search for him in our hearts. God’s approach is something like the saying: “If you love something, let it go. If it returns, it’s yours. If it doesn’t, it never was.” Heaven and hell are a choice made on earth. God’s love prevents him from forcing himself on those who do not desire him; he will honour their choice. And when he removes his presence from them all that is left is hell. That’s why today’s text is so important.

Monday November 30, 2009

She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn, Luke 2:7

Two events today have turned my thoughts to eternity. The first is quite mundane; I needed to clip my nails. I can’t believe they need it already. I may be getting older and slowing down, but my nails won’t follow suit. So on more frequent intervals than expected, the clippers have to come out again.

The first indication that they’ve grown without my permission or knowledge is the yell from the pillow beside me—Ann’s getting her legs scratched in bed again! The second observation is a disturbing clicking on piano and computer keys and an increasing lack of control—what little control I have—on those keys, and a matching lack of harmony and spelling accuracy—again below my dubious standard. How do women with long fingernails cope?

The problem is, nail clipping for me is a hazardous activity, particularly my toenails. As my arms are getting shorter, or my legs longer—not sure which—it is increasingly difficult to reach my toes. The toilet bowl is ideally suited to my handicap, as placing my foot on the rim helps me reach my furthest extremity, and lo and behold, the clippings fall into the ideal receptacle. Trouble is, the clippers with a spring lever sometimes spring out of my hand and head in the same direction. Must remember to flush the toilet before . . .

I understand that hair and nails apparently grow, at least for a while, after death! Probably an extension of that zest for life they refuse to abandon in old age. I doubt if my nails will get clipped when I’m boxed, and Ann needn’t worry about scratched legs. But the thought remains: is our life in our nails and hair? And is the continuation of that life what we call the afterlife? Doesn’t sound too inspiring!

The Bible makes it clear that our physical life is in the blood, not our hair and nails that apparently refuse to die when we do. While animal flesh is given for food, drinking the blood is forbidden, emphasizing the Bible’s assertion of the sanctity of life. But while our physical continuation depends on our blood, the real source of life is elsewhere—believe or not, in the babe in the cattle trough announced in our text.

If he is the source of life, then the blood is only a temporary requirement; life beyond this physical one only requires him, not the trimmings necessary here. The creator of life determines when that life will end, and as our hair and nails suggest, it continues after death.

And the other event reminding me of the afterlife—it’ll have to wait until tomorrow!

Tuesday November 17, 2009

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go, Joshua 1:9.

This text has been used but more often abused to fuel the positive thinking movement, which assumes that all things are possible for us as long as we foster positive thoughts about it! 

Originally developed by Norman Vincent Peale and coated with a Christian veneer, the movement has been encouraged by Robert Schuller and spawned the Word-Faith movement of today. It has earned John Stott’s response: “I find Paul appealing, but Peale appalling.”

In this verse, God encouraged Joshua for the work of settling Israel in the Promised Land, but not to do whatever he wanted. It is the fulfillment of “your Kingdom come and your will be done on earth” that merits this kind of assurance. 

Misplacement of a parallel to positive thinking is the subject of a new book called “the Self-Esteem Trap” that is critical of today’s self-esteem movement.

The author says that “junk praise” is creating a generation of self-absorbed children. She admits to raising perfectionist children who have “been more unhappy than they’ve been happy.” The idea that each child is special—obviously to their parents—does not prepare them to find they are not “special” to everyone else!

This automatic imputing of self-esteem the author complains of, reminds me of another parallel idea, that of anti-grading in education: every child must “pass” at his or her own level. It has created a generation of children who have no idea how their strengths and weaknesses fit in relation to others, and assume that any performance is adequate for any task.

Both these approaches, the emotional and educational, promote the “Self-Esteem Trap.” They infuse the idea that we are automatically entitled to all the benefits of life, an attitude completely alien to the builder generation whose hard work created the prosperity we now enjoy. Unfortunately, the resulting “entitlement” movement is fast undoing the benefits it assumes it is entitled to!

If she could parent over again, the author says she would promote reverence for life, family structure, chores and the responsibilities of being a member of a community. What a breath of fresh air in our culture where “rights” trump everything from respect to responsibility!

Joshua failed in part of the task allotted to him, not because he didn’t think positively enough about it, but because he failed to fulfill the requirements that God laid out. Consequently, he was fooled into letting some of the aliens inhabit the land. 

It’s not a positive self assessment that we need in thinking, education or esteem, but an accurate one. We need to know what strengths God has given and desires us to use, and where others’ strengths can buttress our lesser abilities.

Think about it. Can we really do anything through Christ who strengthens us?

Tuesday November 10, 2009

He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet, Proverbs 27:7

Do you like shepherd’s pie? Perhaps a better question is: Do you know what shepherd’s pie is? Basically it is a form of stew baked with a crisp potato topping, a favourite dollop of which goes down well, both culturally and digestively, in British pubs. If you weren’t sure what shepherd’s pie is, then you will be even more confused over its nomenclature. “Shepherd’s” pie, as its name suggests, is made with lamb.

Then the question arises: “Can I make it with good Alberta beef?” Why not? It is frequently made with English beef, but it is no longer “shepherd’s” pie, it is now “cottage” pie. This should translate adequately into Canadian. But now our daughter has confused the issue even more by changing the ingredients. How much more North American ignorance is going to continue to adulterate the famed English Shepherd’s Pie?

She didn’t try to make it with lamb or beef, but with chicken, and even added corn and beans. This is not only a mockery of shepherd’s or cottage pie; neither name can be awarded to this travesty of British culinary culture. Her husband suggested it should be called “farmer’s” pie because of the inclusion of so many extra ingredients. Perhaps it could be salvaged if some of those foreign ingredients were omitted by calling it “cluckery” pie!

However, I doubt that this pie, whatever it is called and however it is made, would taste any the less great to the hungry soul in our text. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and the same could be said for shepherd’s, cottage or cluckery pie. The real travesty is not naming the pie, it is that a billion of the world’s population goes hungry while much of the remainder feasts on delicacies—perhaps even refusing “honey.” How can we respond to such overwhelming need?

The importance of helping one at a time is illustrated by the story of a child who noticed hundreds of starfish left on the beach by the receding tide. As he started throwing them back into the sea, a passer-by commented that he was making little difference to the vast numbers. The boy threw another starfish into the foam as he replied: “It made a difference to that one.” We can all offer the local equivalent of shepherd’s pie to one family in need.

Monday, November 9, 2009

The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

You may recall the story. Samuel was looking among Jesse’s family for a new king of Israel which the Lord had told him to anoint to replace King Saul. Jesse’s finest, strapping sons looked the part to Samuel, but it was David, a strip of an adolescent that God chose. Perhaps his “ruddy” complexion hid his acne; probably not. Nothing like fresh air and sheep smell to clear it up! Either way, God was looking for a suitable heart, not smooth skin.

All I can say after reading today’s text is: thank goodness. If God was looking for stature, physique or pock free skin, I’d never have made it into his call list. The only wanted list I ever made was the local constabulary traffic division on a regular basis, but, glad to say, it never became a permanent relationship. The only other recourse to desirability was deep pockets, and mine were rarely deeper than David’s would have been. Sheep minding was the lowest rung of the ladder.

All I had left was my heart, and Ann eagerly seized that. Still not sure why she did then, or even less likely, why she still hangs on to it! Especially after nearly sixty years since we first met, she knows in detail what is wrong with it. I guess that’s the mystery of love, it perseveres beyond the defects of the heart, even in human relationships.

What was it that God saw in David’s heart? Certainly not sinlessness, as David’s subsequent biography reveals. If that was God’s pre-requisite for David or me, we would have joined David’s other brothers. For David, it must have been the real intent of the heart, not his later actions. 1 Samuel 13:14 records that the Lord “sought out a man after his own heart,” and that was David.

God was attracted to David because, despite the impurity of his heart on occasions, David thought, cared about and loved those things that were close to God’s heart. The record shows that David’s attitude always led to genuine remorse following failure. The need to spruce up our appearance to be acceptable to others and the rueful awareness of the frailty of our hearts, must make this story the consolation and hope for us all in our desire to please God.