That Wedding!

It’s not possible to pass the recent royal wedding without comment, whatever one’s view of royalty. It is probably the most significant event in history to date—barring the incarnation—judging by a third of the world’s population watching it. That may only be capped by the return of the planet’s King when “every eye will see Him.”

If nothing else, it is a small glimpse into the glory to be accorded Jesus Christ upon His return to earth and His marriage supper, when all the kings of the earth will bring their riches to Him. If you don’t like some pomp and ceremony, you might want to miss that!

I thought it a pity the boys had to remove their caps for the ceremony. It revealed Will’s thinning pate, and Harry’s unruly hair reminded me of his sometimes unruly behaviour. Both belied the pageantry the occasion required!

I find the adulation shown for specific human beings because of their position or heritage a misplaced form of worship. Perhaps for some, if God is absent from their lives, this provides a convenient alternative. But that doesn’t mean that respect should not be shown for those in authority over us. Even if their shenanigans are reprehensible, we are still called to pray for them and respect the office.

The royal family, as with all authorized ruling officials, have my respect, if not always my admiration. But Will and Kate—oops, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge—provide a welcome breath of cleaner air to the royals. The relative simplicity of Kate’s dress—if a male may be permitted and opinion—suggested a moderate and measured approach to her new life. Surprised to miss painted nails, but I guess the train was inevitable!

Despite their lofty privilege, they resonate as a normal earthly couple. Their long friendship has inspired genuine affection, and bodes well for some stability to the royal heritage, sadly missing from the previous generation. This is especially important when they are models for so many.

Let us pray the vows they made and the Christian principles their ceremony espoused will guide their lives. Perhaps their example will bring more stability to the lives of their people and beyond. I doubt they will read this blog and thank me; nevertheless, they have my congratulations and prayers.

What Does the World Believe aout God

Ipsos/Reuters conducted a survey of over 28,000 people worldwide to assess global belief in God. In a world of six billion, it’s a very small sample, but nevertheless raises food for thought. Read the report at http://www.canada.com/life/Belief+supreme+being+strong+worldwide+Poll/4669884/story.html .

It should go without saying that there is no absolute proof of the existence of a supreme being or an afterlife, so a consensus is unlikely, but, according to the poll, about half the world’s population believes in both.

18% said they don’t believe in a god, leaving about a third uncertain. Some in Asia believe in many gods, while the proportion of those who don’t believe in any god reach 40% in Europe and Scandinavia.

Of those believing in an afterlife, 7% thought we are reincarnated, strangely, the largest percentage from Hungary. Other ideas about an afterlife mostly included heaven, less believing in hell, while others were unsure what to expect. Those not believing in an afterlife thought “you simply cease to exist.”

Of course, the safest belief, if true, is that we all die like dogs, and a rotting body is all that remains. That avoids the sticky question of accountability for behaviour in this life. The most frightening scenario is not that there is no afterlife, but that there might be.

The most surprising result of this poll is that so many believe in some deity and an afterlife, considering there is no certain way of confirming either, and the enlightenment has tried eroding this idea for centuries. The growing data of natural reasoning for existence should have convinced the whole world that spiritual beliefs are simply superstition.

Evolution was the last brick in this modern Tower of Babel that attempts to dispense with need for God. Few believe in fairies or Santa Claus, so why should we hold to other apparently improbable beliefs? In fact, why should we even have the capacity to think in spiritual terms if only the physical world exists?

This all-natural approach that we evolved from microscopic life begs the question of why any life form should develop the idea of unseen realities. The jump from simply utilitarian behaviour of animals to the human assumption of an alternate existence is a huge conjectural leap.

Of course, once belief in God is established, the implantation of desire for Him, evidenced in the search for God since history began, becomes a reasonable assumption. It takes determined effort not to wonder about the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, beyond simply preserving its existence.

It’s easy to dismiss the idea of God in prosperity when it appears we control our destiny. Under those conditions God is unnecessary and not worth keeping. The three billion who believe and the two billion who are uncertain are simply ignorant, deluded, or just fools. (We are left to wonder who the fools are, Psalm 53:1).

If what we observe with our senses is all there is, what’s the point of maintaining the miserable existence of the majority on earth? Culling makes the most reasonable, horrific sense. But the human soul is totally dissatisfied with such a philosophy, and when hard rubber hits the road, all the reasonable disbelief in the world is cold comfort.

No wonder most of the world seeks Him who is beyond it.

A Personal Easter Reflection

The events of life continually offer fresh insights into the crucifixion. I am reminded of my surgery for prostate cancer two years ago, which strange to say, added real meaning to the cross for me.

Two weeks before surgery, I received an armband with name and barcode on it, together with dire warnings not to remove it or “you’ll get no blood transfusions, nothin’ if you don’t have it on for surgery.”

My surgeon told me I lost a lot of blood during extended surgery time and I received two transfusions. I’m glad I kept that armband on!

It feels a little peculiar to think that I have someone else’s blood flowing through my arteries and veins and I am particularly grateful for that one who donated blood for me. My blood type is AB negative, the rarest of the ABO group. The donor needed the right blood necessary for my survival.

The parallel is all too clear: I am eternally grateful for the blood given for me at the cross—blood of a type suited for my particular need. Human blood gives me earthly existence, but life that gives me meaning is the transcendent life gained from the blood of Jesus Christ.

Because his blood was real, purpose for this life and assurance for the next is also real.

The Negative Advantage?

It seems that this election is largely a battle of the neg-ads. From all the commentary we hear, it appears the party with the best negative advertising will win the election. Perhaps we have been wrong to believe that love makes the world go round—forget it, sex does it—any variety. After all, society is suffering from the strangle-hold of heterosex.

No wonder so many of our churches are failing. We have not mastered the art of running down the other churches—we only tinker at it. Obviously we must be more effective at this. We need campaigns and rallies to establish the apostasy of other church groups and damn other religions. Judgment is more effective than love.

No wonder evangelism is ineffective. Who cares about the love of God? Lay much more stress on what miserable sinners others are, and the damnation that awaits them. Only the enlightened few—us—who enjoy God’s favour can enlighten them. And, of course, keep them out of our churches.

Let’s face it, Darwin has already proved that life consists of the survival of the fittest. Those unable to care for themselves are a drain on resources, better used for more constructive results. Let nature take its course on those unable to help themselves. 

Our marriages too, may be suffering from too much tolerance of the other partner. Much more fault finding and female subjugation would make for a calmer life. After all, nature made men stronger for a reason. Service to others is not only self-defeating, it defies nature. A servile wife makes for a satisfied life.

Watching the neg-ads, clearly all the protagonists are deceiving liars, only bent on power and set to ruin Canada. If Harper wins, families will die of starvation while the rich enjoy nirvana. If Iggy wins, we will only earn enough money to pay our taxes. If Jack wins, reckless social programs will bankrupt the fragile economy. Worse still, if Gilles ever became prime minister, he would break up the country. Hmmm, actually . . .

Remember all this on voting day. Maybe we should spoil our ballots and vote for Ghadaffi?

Abortion: The Elephant in the Room

It is intriguing to wonder why we tiptoe around abortion like a sleeping tiger. It continues as major issue facing Canada, typified by the persistent refrain: “I’m fearful Harper/the Conservatives/others will raise the abortion issue.” It betrays the subconscious fear that it remains an explosive issue

It remains so for a reason. Abortion is the number one issue facing Canadians on two fronts. First it deals with human life and death, and second, as long as a large part of Canadians oppose it, it remains an major ethical issue that cannot remain dormant indefinitely.

I recognize the difficult and often dire straits of many who seek abortions and the help they need. Unfortunately, abortion is a short term, counterproductive solution, rather like cutting down a needed fruit tree because it obscures the view. There has to be a more humane solution than simply aborting human life.

Apart from the destroyed life of the unborn child, growing numbers of women—and men—hide their pain following abortion, for guilt often infuses grief at this significant loss. They wonder what their aborted child would look like at today’s age; his eye or her hair colour, and mourn the loss of joy from a lost expanding family.

I can’t help feeling that the venom we direct at pedophiles, beyond their deserved judgment, is a subconscious cultural reaction to suppressed guilt at the widespread termination of children we have been given and rejected.

But the problem has greater reach than the individual. It is not possible to terminate 100,000 human lives a year, consider it acceptable and settled, without consequences. This amounts to about 3.2 million abortions—approximately the population of Alberta—since Canada repealed all laws protecting the unborn in 1988.

This huge loss has impoverished our nation of a complete province of people who would now be serving our nation, expanding our industries and culture, and providing the natural balance between the young and earning and the old and feeble. Now, we need to augment our birth rate, well below replacement value, to ensure a stable or growing population.

I welcome those attracted to our shores because of the opportunities Canada offers. The vast majority seek what we all need: a secure and stable environment to raise their families, most of whom will aid our deficient population because they do not practise abortion.

Abortion and infanticide in China and India have left those most populous nations with a huge imbalance of the sexes. Our supposed mastery of nature may yet turn and slap us in face. Abortion is a negative and destructive mastery. We can have the children nature gives and limit the children we desire, but not make the children we need.

I doubt we know all the ramifications from widespread abortion. Unless we discuss abortion freely and openly to seek all its outcomes, national and personal, we may leave a deteriorating legacy for the children we permit to live.

Democratic Multi-Culturalism: Separating "Them" from "Us"

Whatever the value of democracy, the adversarial system that our form of government produces makes it hard to take the cut and thrust of political wrangling seriously. The recent English election debate reinforces the appearance of the most influential people in the land squabbling like children, contradicting each other, while saying almost nothing of substance.

The arrangement of combatants in this latest battle royal, although apparently settled by lot, says volumes. Mr. Harper was safely ensconced in the west, his place of solid support, while Mr.Duceppe occupied the east where he would like to ascend the throne of a sovereign Quebec.

Mr. Ignatieff, meanwhile, was strategically placed between Jack and Gill, close enough to grab their hands, if necessary, and hoist them up in a caricature of Stephan Dion’s triumphant formation of his coalition.

I have little patience with Mr. Duceppe whose expressed mandate is to break up Canada and obtain the lion’s share of the public purse for his wannabe nation. But one comment he made resonates deeply with me. He complained that multiculturalism doesn’t work for Quebec.

He is repeating comments about the failure of multiculturalism made by both the Prime Minister of England and the President of France. One Canadian commentator, Brian Seaman at http://www.canada.com/life/Multiculturalism+Still+work+progress/4531150/story.html tries to cover the failure of multiculturalism as a “still a work in progress” after 40 years. He claims Canada is sufficiently different to make it work.

It seems to me, that multiculturalism, as “in progress” in Canada, is producing a polyglot of small political enclaves imported from the sending countries. Whatever the legitimate grievances of first nations, they provide a template for other “second” nations to follow, creating ghettos that have little or no allegiance to Canada yet use the infamous Human Rights Tribunals to air their grievances.

But if a nation of immigrants—as I am—is to be forged into a nation, an integration process of some sort is needed to produce a cohesive country. Newcomers must recognize the responsibilities as well as the rights of residence and citizenship. They are not simply a package transplant from their homeland, apparently the way some understand multiculturalism.

This would not only ease the way for immigrants to settle, but would also make it easier for Canadians to recognize and support new residents as neighbours rather than strangers. We need and appreciate the skills and industry that immigrants contribute to Canada, but need an approach to immigration that includes, not divides, “them” from “us.”

Unfortunately, the form of divisive government practised in Ottawa, and illustrated in the Great Debate, reinforces a multi-partisan culture the rest of us, new or native, don’t really want to follow.

The High Cost of Divorce

Family break-up is slowly strangling both the Canadian courts systems, and the cohesive life of the country. It has long been my belief that if we cannot get along with those closest to us, there is little hope for other equally important relationships that make up a national fabric?

We can follow the journey from “easier” divorce (no divorce is easy), to relaxed sexual mores and the flight from traditional marriage, that has left us with a legacy of broken lives for parents and children alike. The vitriol and hatred spawned from the deluge of marriage wrecks, easily carries over into the culture and threatens the stability of community.

Adding to the tragedy of divorce, is the outrageous financial costs and the vicious fall-out from the adversarial system of our courts. Georgialee Lang, a respected lawyer in Vancouver, has called for change to this system, which affects so many, to be a major election issue. Read her story at http://www.canada.com/will+broken+family+system/4585240/story.html

Given the prevalence of divorce, however much we may decry it, Christians should be in the forefront of providing counselling for reconciliation; but where that is not possible, also for a fair and compatible severance. Alleviating the misery of divorce, like bringing healing to the sick, should be part of the Christian mandate, while continuing to combat sin, the cause of both.

The current law and court system accentuates the suffering of divorcing families. “With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.” Georgialee suggests a procedure most jurisdictions outside Canada have already adopted:

“A move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.”

We need to support, pray and vote for those who uphold Christian values—whether or not they have Christian beliefs—if they are in a position to enact them. When we cannot save the marriage, perhaps legal change can lessen the trauma; particularly for the children who are always the victims of divorce.