Yesterday was the annual ChairLeaders event here in town. And I took part. Which means I spent the day in a wheelchair to see what I learned. I would post pictures but for some reason they will not upload at the moment. (readers with whom I am FB friends can find some pictures there)
We gathered first thing in the morning to get our chairs and do an obstacle course to get a feel for them. Said course included trying to make a basketball shot--I was about as successful at that sitting down as I usually am standing up. Then the disabled transit bus arrived so we could learn what it is like to get loaded up in same. Next step was to head off to the mall for lunch and the rest of the day.
The afternoon was spent exploring the mall, seeing how easy it is to maneuver in stores, noting what you can and can not see from that perspective. Then the day ended with a victory lap down the main corridor and back up the hil to the bus stop to go back to where we began.
What did I learn? One that keeping the chair in a straight-ish line was really hard on my left (non-dominant) arm and shoulder -- the chair kept wanting to drift left, requiring more push on that wheel to keep straight. Another was how important it is to have a properly fitting chair. The one I was in was not right (although with a seat cushion it would have been better) and my legs kept cramping up. Also, one is unaware how uncomfortable it is to stay in one position for that long. I did not realize how often I must change position on a regular day until I wasn't doing so. As far as the shopping, the difficulties in maneuvering around in stores were not news to me, shopping with a stroller has the same challenges (if not more because a stroller is longer than a wheelchair and does not turn as well). And of course stock is not placed well when you are seated. It is placed for standing adults to see. On the other hand, it gave a handy place to sit while trying on shoes.
I also know that we got off easy. Last year's group was taken downtown and sent out on the sidewalks and streets. Being indoors meant we had essentially flat surfaces to deal with (although you could sure tell when you hit a slight slope in the floor). We did not have curb cuts or gravel or broken pavement to deal with.
There were also some interesting reactions. I actually started this process on Sunday, leading worship from a wheelchair. There were some on Sunday who were convinced I was going to roll off the chancel platform. There were also those who had a slight panic when I wheeled in to the sanctuary, wondering what had happened. Same reaction from one person I ran into at the mall. I had been working with her at the church garage sale last Thursday and she was worried about what had happened to me in the intervening 4 days. (side note: my Sunday experience showed that if the church were to have a regular worship leader in a chair, or using a walker, the chancel area would need some reorganizing, and plausibly some work on ramps. still it is better than some chancels I have been on--at least there is a ramp on one side where most only have steps)
It was a good way to spend the day. Part of the time I was carrying a child on my lap. And we have a picture of the (almost) three-year-old "pushing" daddy in his wheel chair. But as an awareness exercise it is a great idea. Maybe I'll do it again next year?????
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Mental Health Week
Apparently this past week has been Canadian Mental Health week. And I was totally unaware of it until I saw a poster on the bulletin board at the church this morning. Which pretty much sums up the attitude towards mental health in our society doesn't it?
I mean if it were national Breast Cancer week there would be fundraising activities and stories in the newspaper and everyone would know of it. Same with any number of other issues. But mental health week can come and go with barely a mention. Why is that??
I would suggest it is because mental health is not a comfortable topic with many people. I would suggest that mental health (and its' counterpart mental illness) is still seen as something that is not to be talked about. Which leads directly to the stigma that comes with mental illness.
But let us be honest. Each of us deals with mental health issues. Each of us needs to take care of our mental health just as we have to take care of our physical health. And to be equally honest, sometimes we do just as "good" a job at it. And how many people know someone who lives with depression, or bi-polar disorder, or some other mental illness?
I think it is time to lift mental health out of the role of second-class brother to physical health. I think it is time to give it equal treatment to the rest of our health care issues. Yes that means funding it properly. Yes that means being willing to talk about it. Yes that means reducing the stigma that comes with admitting one's struggles. But in the end we will ALL be healthier for it.
So tell me, what did you do this week to support your mental health? What will you do next week?
I mean if it were national Breast Cancer week there would be fundraising activities and stories in the newspaper and everyone would know of it. Same with any number of other issues. But mental health week can come and go with barely a mention. Why is that??
I would suggest it is because mental health is not a comfortable topic with many people. I would suggest that mental health (and its' counterpart mental illness) is still seen as something that is not to be talked about. Which leads directly to the stigma that comes with mental illness.
But let us be honest. Each of us deals with mental health issues. Each of us needs to take care of our mental health just as we have to take care of our physical health. And to be equally honest, sometimes we do just as "good" a job at it. And how many people know someone who lives with depression, or bi-polar disorder, or some other mental illness?
I think it is time to lift mental health out of the role of second-class brother to physical health. I think it is time to give it equal treatment to the rest of our health care issues. Yes that means funding it properly. Yes that means being willing to talk about it. Yes that means reducing the stigma that comes with admitting one's struggles. But in the end we will ALL be healthier for it.
So tell me, what did you do this week to support your mental health? What will you do next week?
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Book 5 of 2013 -- the geek handbook
A delightfully mindless read. An introduction to meeting your own inner geek (not that I would know what that is like of course).
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Fear....
Over the past week a phrase has been running through my mind. It is a classic phrase from US political history. It comes from the first inaugural address of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...
To a degree I think that is the phrase we need to say over and over again as the news media runs repeated stories about events like the bomb blasts in Boston. We need to repeat it over and over as we hear about the fertilizer fire and explosion in Texas. We need it to counter the strange choices the news and entertainment and social media make at such times. (One Canadian channel was responding to the Texas story by asking folks in Canada who live close to a different fertilizer plant if they felt safe--trying to spread fear????)
But first here is a fuller quote:
It is my belief that for the last several decades fear has been the prime motivator of public policy and most public discourse. 2 generations were raised on Cold War fears, with the threat of nuclear annihilation hovering over their heads. Then the USSR dissolved/collapsed and a new threat needed to be found. [Well sort of, there is still a strong "Communist menace" fear line visible in US political rhetoric] And as it happened we ended up with a convenient threat. Terrorism.
Do we know how to live without focusing on what we fear? One internet conversation I was in this week (of Canadians primarily) had a person both insisting that for events like the Boston marathon in the future everybody attending the event or in the area of the event needs to be searched to prevent a similar thing happening. NOw yes that response is un-Constitutional in either the US or Canada, and is impossible from a practical standpoint without fencing wide areas of public territory. But I can easily see that such a response could build a following by building on the fear. After all, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks both US and Canadian (and likely some European nations) legislators passed regulations and processes that would have been called undemocratic just years before--to respond to the fear.
The only thing we have to fear....
Yes FDR could be accused of being overly simplistic in sharing that belief. But we have not done that have we? That phrase ranks near the top of well-known political quotes. So why do we choose to live in the fear?
Asa a person of faith I remember that repeatedly in Scripture God says to God's people "Fear not". As a person of faith I remember that we live in hope that, as Dame Julian said, "All will be well, all will be well, all manner of thing be well". We could let events like the Newtown shooting or the Boston bombing or Ricin letters or anything else that people use to make us afraid win and live out of the fear. We could let the fear lead us to do things that appear to make life more difficult and arguably less safe. Or we could ask if there is another way.
Which path will we choose? Will we listen to those who tell us to be afraid or to those who tell us to fear not?
...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...
To a degree I think that is the phrase we need to say over and over again as the news media runs repeated stories about events like the bomb blasts in Boston. We need to repeat it over and over as we hear about the fertilizer fire and explosion in Texas. We need it to counter the strange choices the news and entertainment and social media make at such times. (One Canadian channel was responding to the Texas story by asking folks in Canada who live close to a different fertilizer plant if they felt safe--trying to spread fear????)
But first here is a fuller quote:
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.FDR gave that speech in 1933, the throes of the Great Depression (like many others I always assumed it was from the war years, until I looked it up a while preparing a newspaper column a few years ago). That was a threat to the American way of life. That was a time when it was uncertain that recovery was possible. Fear and panic were epidemic with bank runs and collapses not unknown. And FDR told the nation that the only thing they had to fear was fear. Really?
It is my belief that for the last several decades fear has been the prime motivator of public policy and most public discourse. 2 generations were raised on Cold War fears, with the threat of nuclear annihilation hovering over their heads. Then the USSR dissolved/collapsed and a new threat needed to be found. [Well sort of, there is still a strong "Communist menace" fear line visible in US political rhetoric] And as it happened we ended up with a convenient threat. Terrorism.
Do we know how to live without focusing on what we fear? One internet conversation I was in this week (of Canadians primarily) had a person both insisting that for events like the Boston marathon in the future everybody attending the event or in the area of the event needs to be searched to prevent a similar thing happening. NOw yes that response is un-Constitutional in either the US or Canada, and is impossible from a practical standpoint without fencing wide areas of public territory. But I can easily see that such a response could build a following by building on the fear. After all, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks both US and Canadian (and likely some European nations) legislators passed regulations and processes that would have been called undemocratic just years before--to respond to the fear.
The only thing we have to fear....
Yes FDR could be accused of being overly simplistic in sharing that belief. But we have not done that have we? That phrase ranks near the top of well-known political quotes. So why do we choose to live in the fear?
Asa a person of faith I remember that repeatedly in Scripture God says to God's people "Fear not". As a person of faith I remember that we live in hope that, as Dame Julian said, "All will be well, all will be well, all manner of thing be well". We could let events like the Newtown shooting or the Boston bombing or Ricin letters or anything else that people use to make us afraid win and live out of the fear. We could let the fear lead us to do things that appear to make life more difficult and arguably less safe. Or we could ask if there is another way.
Which path will we choose? Will we listen to those who tell us to be afraid or to those who tell us to fear not?
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Safe. Legal. Rare.
Can you guess what that refers to?
I suppose it could be a number of things. But in this case it is my position on abortion.
Last week we had our monthly meeting of the Ministerial Association (technically this was the March meeting but because of Holy Week [our regular meeting is the last Tuesday of the month] we postponed to April 2). One of the guest speakers was the president of Voice for Life.
During this presentation there was a story equating German churches who were silent about the holocaust and chose to not hear the cries of its victims with people of faith who choose not to speak out against the right of women to make choices about their own health -- because the right to choose is just the same as genocide you know. Then there was a handout trumpeting how wonderfully successful the USan anti-choice movement has been recently because of the high number of pieces of anti-choice legislation that have been passed in the last two years (not mentioning that some of those pieces of legislation involve violations of women's rights, intelligence, and bodies). Then comes the kicker in their argument.
Canada has NOTHING in the Criminal Code dealing with legislation. Hasn't had for 25 years, as this link explains [yes I know Wikipedia is not the most academically sound source, but everything else that popped up in a Google search came from a clearly pro or anti organization]. And yes that means that legally abortions can occur at any point in a pregnancy. Even up to birth. Now most sources I have seen over the years point out that the VAST majority take place early. And a miniscule number occur in the last trimester. But apparently that is not the point. The point is that they CAN happen, not whether they actually do. And so the Canadian anti-choice movement is advocating for a new law to be written.
Not gonna happen. Yes I know there are elements within the Conservative Party of Canada that would love that to happen. Some of them draft motions in Parliament that are obvious attempts to bring abortion restrictions in through the back door -- such as decrying sex-selection abortion. But for all the low respect I have for the current Prime Minister I think he is too smart to try and bring in such a law. And frankly I am fine with that.
Which brings us to safe, legal, and rare. I was really tempted to ask (but didn't-why stir things up needlessly) what people around that table were willing to do to get to rare in the continued absence of legislation. Comprehensive sexuality education? Increased access to birth control? Guaranteed annual income? Well funded and subsidized child care? Support for adoption? That is how you get to rare. Not by making it illegal. Not by making decisions for other people. By ensuring there are viable other options.
I suppose it could be a number of things. But in this case it is my position on abortion.
Last week we had our monthly meeting of the Ministerial Association (technically this was the March meeting but because of Holy Week [our regular meeting is the last Tuesday of the month] we postponed to April 2). One of the guest speakers was the president of Voice for Life.
During this presentation there was a story equating German churches who were silent about the holocaust and chose to not hear the cries of its victims with people of faith who choose not to speak out against the right of women to make choices about their own health -- because the right to choose is just the same as genocide you know. Then there was a handout trumpeting how wonderfully successful the USan anti-choice movement has been recently because of the high number of pieces of anti-choice legislation that have been passed in the last two years (not mentioning that some of those pieces of legislation involve violations of women's rights, intelligence, and bodies). Then comes the kicker in their argument.
Canada has NOTHING in the Criminal Code dealing with legislation. Hasn't had for 25 years, as this link explains [yes I know Wikipedia is not the most academically sound source, but everything else that popped up in a Google search came from a clearly pro or anti organization]. And yes that means that legally abortions can occur at any point in a pregnancy. Even up to birth. Now most sources I have seen over the years point out that the VAST majority take place early. And a miniscule number occur in the last trimester. But apparently that is not the point. The point is that they CAN happen, not whether they actually do. And so the Canadian anti-choice movement is advocating for a new law to be written.
Not gonna happen. Yes I know there are elements within the Conservative Party of Canada that would love that to happen. Some of them draft motions in Parliament that are obvious attempts to bring abortion restrictions in through the back door -- such as decrying sex-selection abortion. But for all the low respect I have for the current Prime Minister I think he is too smart to try and bring in such a law. And frankly I am fine with that.
Which brings us to safe, legal, and rare. I was really tempted to ask (but didn't-why stir things up needlessly) what people around that table were willing to do to get to rare in the continued absence of legislation. Comprehensive sexuality education? Increased access to birth control? Guaranteed annual income? Well funded and subsidized child care? Support for adoption? That is how you get to rare. Not by making it illegal. Not by making decisions for other people. By ensuring there are viable other options.
Monday, April 08, 2013
It must be an Election year....
ANd how could I tell? Because today I found this page on Facebook. There is something about an election year, particularly for municipal elections, that brings out such groups.
I find taxpayer advocacy groups both fascinating and annoying. In Canada the grand-daddy of all such groups is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. One of their early leaders was a young Stephen Harper (for the record now PM Harper is no longer in the CTF good books because he has not been the strict fiscal conservative they wanted). The CTF is a right-wing, fiscally conservative, small government group that is loud but not nearly as effective as they think. And I am also not at all sure they are as well-supported by the general public as they would like to think. They like to make a big splash by calling for idiotic things like making party leaders sign "no new/raised taxes" pledges during an election campaign--sort of like Grover Nordquist in the US. The difference is that Canadian politicians, at least the ones who end up in power, even if they are suckered into the idiotic photo op, are often able to ignore the pledge and act in a more responsible fashion.
At a local level (and in more than one municipality) I have found that the Taxpayer defence/advocacy groups end up looking more like whiners than anything else. They tend to attract the people who want a forum to complain either that taxes are too high or services are not being appropriately provided or in fact both at once. [It always amuses me when people complain about a lack of a particular government service while simultaneously complaining about tax rates being to high/being raised too often. It seems that those two complaints are counter-productive to each other.]
The most disturbing part of the group I found today is that they are insisting that they remain anonymous. That is their right of course. And it is entirely possible they have valid concerns about issues around town (although I have yet to see one I find valid posted to their page). But the optics are not good. To be taken seriously about opening a space for debate would mean being open about who you are. And to really be taken seriously about these issues in a municipal election year would of course mean putting your name on the ballot in the fall. But of course then you might win and learn that you can't actually do what you call for because it simply is not realistic. I have seen that happen to at least one member of a ratepayers group before.
I find taxpayer advocacy groups both fascinating and annoying. In Canada the grand-daddy of all such groups is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. One of their early leaders was a young Stephen Harper (for the record now PM Harper is no longer in the CTF good books because he has not been the strict fiscal conservative they wanted). The CTF is a right-wing, fiscally conservative, small government group that is loud but not nearly as effective as they think. And I am also not at all sure they are as well-supported by the general public as they would like to think. They like to make a big splash by calling for idiotic things like making party leaders sign "no new/raised taxes" pledges during an election campaign--sort of like Grover Nordquist in the US. The difference is that Canadian politicians, at least the ones who end up in power, even if they are suckered into the idiotic photo op, are often able to ignore the pledge and act in a more responsible fashion.
At a local level (and in more than one municipality) I have found that the Taxpayer defence/advocacy groups end up looking more like whiners than anything else. They tend to attract the people who want a forum to complain either that taxes are too high or services are not being appropriately provided or in fact both at once. [It always amuses me when people complain about a lack of a particular government service while simultaneously complaining about tax rates being to high/being raised too often. It seems that those two complaints are counter-productive to each other.]
The most disturbing part of the group I found today is that they are insisting that they remain anonymous. That is their right of course. And it is entirely possible they have valid concerns about issues around town (although I have yet to see one I find valid posted to their page). But the optics are not good. To be taken seriously about opening a space for debate would mean being open about who you are. And to really be taken seriously about these issues in a municipal election year would of course mean putting your name on the ballot in the fall. But of course then you might win and learn that you can't actually do what you call for because it simply is not realistic. I have seen that happen to at least one member of a ratepayers group before.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Christ-characters
When I was in my first year of seminary our Intro to New Testament course focused on questions of Christology. And so one of the assignments was to look at Christology in a piece of popular culture. I remember that one of my classmates did that paper on Jesus Chris Superstar and one of the points she raised was whether Herod had a swimming pool and did a soft shoe dance. I did my paper on Christology within The Lord of the Rings (which was really just an excuse to buy a copy and read the book again that year as well as a bit of low-hanging fruit for me since I know the book so well).
Christ-figures are really quite popular in literature. I have this vision of some day doing a study group of Christ figures in books and movies. I would in fact argue than most great quest-epics have at least one Christ-figure in them.
Jut think of them. Aslan in the Narnia series (arguably the least subtle Christ figure in anything I have read). Harry Potter in, well, Harry Potter. In the paper I mentioned above I argued that Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo are all Christ figures in one way or another. Obi-Wan Kenobi for sure in Star Wars and I believe you could argue that Luke is also a Christ-figure, and (possibly Yoda?). Jean Valjean in the musical (haven't read the novel) Les Miserables. Simba in The Lion King (does that mean that Hamlet is also a potential Christ-figure???). These are all fairly easy to pick up. But recently I came up with a new one....
On Good Friday morning, while I was in the shower, I was thinking through my meditation for the service that morning. The meditation was titled "The End" and was going to focus on how the followers of Jesus must have felt as they watched him die. [In an admittedly self-promoting move I will now point out that you can hear that meditation here] And a scene came into my mind. From The Princess Bride. Now that is not exactly a movie one would either think of in relation to Good Friday or in a discussion of Christ-figures.
But as I worked with the scene [the scene I was using was when Inigo and Fezzik find Westley in the Pit of Despair and Inigo says "He's dead" and then we switch to the grandson objecting that grandpa is reading the story wrong because someone has to "get" Humperdinck and Westley is not supposed to die] I realized that it did in fact tie in well to where I was going with the meditation. And moreso I realized that an argument can be made that Westley is in fact a Christ figure, albeit on a relatively smaller scale than Frodo saving Middle Earth or Harry walking into the Forbidden Forest so Voldemort can kill him.
One of the ways we need to do theology is to make connections with the culture around us. This is not new. This is how successful popular (as in "of the people" not as in well-liked or critically acclaimed) theology has always worked. And so we mine novels and movies and TV shows for images that will help us tell and explore the story of God at work in the world. And sometimes that mining has surprising, out of the blue, results.
Christ-figures are really quite popular in literature. I have this vision of some day doing a study group of Christ figures in books and movies. I would in fact argue than most great quest-epics have at least one Christ-figure in them.
Jut think of them. Aslan in the Narnia series (arguably the least subtle Christ figure in anything I have read). Harry Potter in, well, Harry Potter. In the paper I mentioned above I argued that Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo are all Christ figures in one way or another. Obi-Wan Kenobi for sure in Star Wars and I believe you could argue that Luke is also a Christ-figure, and (possibly Yoda?). Jean Valjean in the musical (haven't read the novel) Les Miserables. Simba in The Lion King (does that mean that Hamlet is also a potential Christ-figure???). These are all fairly easy to pick up. But recently I came up with a new one....
On Good Friday morning, while I was in the shower, I was thinking through my meditation for the service that morning. The meditation was titled "The End" and was going to focus on how the followers of Jesus must have felt as they watched him die. [In an admittedly self-promoting move I will now point out that you can hear that meditation here] And a scene came into my mind. From The Princess Bride. Now that is not exactly a movie one would either think of in relation to Good Friday or in a discussion of Christ-figures.
But as I worked with the scene [the scene I was using was when Inigo and Fezzik find Westley in the Pit of Despair and Inigo says "He's dead" and then we switch to the grandson objecting that grandpa is reading the story wrong because someone has to "get" Humperdinck and Westley is not supposed to die] I realized that it did in fact tie in well to where I was going with the meditation. And moreso I realized that an argument can be made that Westley is in fact a Christ figure, albeit on a relatively smaller scale than Frodo saving Middle Earth or Harry walking into the Forbidden Forest so Voldemort can kill him.
One of the ways we need to do theology is to make connections with the culture around us. This is not new. This is how successful popular (as in "of the people" not as in well-liked or critically acclaimed) theology has always worked. And so we mine novels and movies and TV shows for images that will help us tell and explore the story of God at work in the world. And sometimes that mining has surprising, out of the blue, results.
Friday, March 29, 2013
THe "King" is dead...
King Ralph some called him. Citizen Ralph others called him. Some found him overbearing, egotistical, arrogant, uncaring. Others thought he was a man of the people, "one of us". Some thought his Premiership was an utter disaster. Others thought he was the greatest thing to happen to the province since Lougheed (and for some that assessment includes the 2 premiers who followed him). Ralph Klein, from his first term as mayor of Calgary through to the end of his political career made a splash. That much is certain.
I first heard about the man in that first term. As the recession of the early 1980's hit in full force and jobs became scarcer there were a number of imports who had come to Alberta in search of the plentiful oil-patch jobs they had heard about for most of the 1970's [funny how things stay the same isn't it, people still come to Alberta looking for the plentiful oil-patch jobs -- just ask how many Easterners are working in Fort MacMurray]. Only problem was, the jobs had dried up with the crash of the oil industry and soaring interest rates so there were hordes (according to some) of unemployed Easterners in Calgary. Mayor Klein went on the record as telling the Eastern bums and jerks to go home. He did have a way of speaking his mind. [Just to note, Ralph was hardly unique in Alberta to having a less than friendly disposition to the East at times--there have been many people in the province who have at one time said the Eastern bums could freeze in the dark, and during the 1980's there was a vocal group calling for Western separation]
Then later Ralph became a Cabinet Minister. I remember in 3rd year University doing a parody of him as Environment minster. If memory serves there were more than a few calling him Ralph Clown at that point. What else can you say about an environment minister who flipped the bird to environmentalists asking why he was not working to protect the environment (peak issues during his tenure included effluent from pulp mills polluting the Athabasca river system).
Then he became premier, the role he is possibly best know for, especially outside of Calgary. HE became premier when the province was in debt after never fully recovering from deficit budgets during the 1980's. And his premiership marked a grand shift into the neo-conservative philosophy. He (well his government, a premier can not do these things by him/herself) slashed budgets, he cut jobs, he did balance the budget and pay off the debt. One year he even sent out "Ralph bucks", rebate cheques to every Albertan because there was such a surplus. And for that he was applauded. By some. Others of us watched and asked what the cost of that was. There were those who asked if there was even a plan both to the cuts and the debt pay off and to dealing with the budget as a whole (late in his time as premier, as the province was back in a boom and growth he more or less admitted the government did not have a plan). Dart board economics was how I used to describe it--dart #1 decided which department to cut and dart #2 decided how much to cut.
The thing is, Ralph was not always a deep conservative. As this article reminds folk he was once quite the opposite. At one point in the mid 1980's he was tied heavily to the Canadian Liberal party. But memories are funny things, and it is often what we do/who we are last that sticks in people's minds.
What he was, despite the fact that I found his premiership to be deeply troubling (when I was looking at settlement in 2001 I pretty much was saying my preference was NOT to be in Alberta because I had had enough of Ralph Klein's Alberta -- so the church in its ironic wisdom sent me to Mike "the Knife" Harris' Ontario), is an excellent politician. As mayor he sold incredible property tax hikes and was re-elected by a grand majority. As Premier he decimated the public service, he closed hospitals (some of which never should have been built to be honest but Alberta had money coming in hand over fist in the 70's), he reduced nurses, and he became popular for it! Ralph made it look like he was a populist because he made the public think they had asked for what he did. This is a man who resigned as party leader because he only got 55% in a party vote of confidence--some party leaders would love to have that after a decade of the top job.
He was always controversial. He showed up (drunk, the story goes) at a homeless shelter one night and threw change at the shelter residents. He said that a rancher who discovered a cow with mad cow disease should have chosen to "shoot, shovel and shut up" as the that discovery damaged the Canadian cattle industry. He was not always (was rarely?) diplomatic. But he was committed to the job. THat you can not take away from him. I just wish the lionizing I saw on the news tonight reporting his death would take time to name that he was not a saint, that his choices as premier accomplished his stated goals only at a great cost.
Here are soem highlights from his long career.
I first heard about the man in that first term. As the recession of the early 1980's hit in full force and jobs became scarcer there were a number of imports who had come to Alberta in search of the plentiful oil-patch jobs they had heard about for most of the 1970's [funny how things stay the same isn't it, people still come to Alberta looking for the plentiful oil-patch jobs -- just ask how many Easterners are working in Fort MacMurray]. Only problem was, the jobs had dried up with the crash of the oil industry and soaring interest rates so there were hordes (according to some) of unemployed Easterners in Calgary. Mayor Klein went on the record as telling the Eastern bums and jerks to go home. He did have a way of speaking his mind. [Just to note, Ralph was hardly unique in Alberta to having a less than friendly disposition to the East at times--there have been many people in the province who have at one time said the Eastern bums could freeze in the dark, and during the 1980's there was a vocal group calling for Western separation]
Then later Ralph became a Cabinet Minister. I remember in 3rd year University doing a parody of him as Environment minster. If memory serves there were more than a few calling him Ralph Clown at that point. What else can you say about an environment minister who flipped the bird to environmentalists asking why he was not working to protect the environment (peak issues during his tenure included effluent from pulp mills polluting the Athabasca river system).
Then he became premier, the role he is possibly best know for, especially outside of Calgary. HE became premier when the province was in debt after never fully recovering from deficit budgets during the 1980's. And his premiership marked a grand shift into the neo-conservative philosophy. He (well his government, a premier can not do these things by him/herself) slashed budgets, he cut jobs, he did balance the budget and pay off the debt. One year he even sent out "Ralph bucks", rebate cheques to every Albertan because there was such a surplus. And for that he was applauded. By some. Others of us watched and asked what the cost of that was. There were those who asked if there was even a plan both to the cuts and the debt pay off and to dealing with the budget as a whole (late in his time as premier, as the province was back in a boom and growth he more or less admitted the government did not have a plan). Dart board economics was how I used to describe it--dart #1 decided which department to cut and dart #2 decided how much to cut.
The thing is, Ralph was not always a deep conservative. As this article reminds folk he was once quite the opposite. At one point in the mid 1980's he was tied heavily to the Canadian Liberal party. But memories are funny things, and it is often what we do/who we are last that sticks in people's minds.
What he was, despite the fact that I found his premiership to be deeply troubling (when I was looking at settlement in 2001 I pretty much was saying my preference was NOT to be in Alberta because I had had enough of Ralph Klein's Alberta -- so the church in its ironic wisdom sent me to Mike "the Knife" Harris' Ontario), is an excellent politician. As mayor he sold incredible property tax hikes and was re-elected by a grand majority. As Premier he decimated the public service, he closed hospitals (some of which never should have been built to be honest but Alberta had money coming in hand over fist in the 70's), he reduced nurses, and he became popular for it! Ralph made it look like he was a populist because he made the public think they had asked for what he did. This is a man who resigned as party leader because he only got 55% in a party vote of confidence--some party leaders would love to have that after a decade of the top job.
He was always controversial. He showed up (drunk, the story goes) at a homeless shelter one night and threw change at the shelter residents. He said that a rancher who discovered a cow with mad cow disease should have chosen to "shoot, shovel and shut up" as the that discovery damaged the Canadian cattle industry. He was not always (was rarely?) diplomatic. But he was committed to the job. THat you can not take away from him. I just wish the lionizing I saw on the news tonight reporting his death would take time to name that he was not a saint, that his choices as premier accomplished his stated goals only at a great cost.
Here are soem highlights from his long career.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Palm Sunday
29 years ago today (by the liturgical calendar at least--by the secular calendar it was April 15 [I just checked]) I was confirmed at the age of 15. I was in Grade 9.
In that era in that congregation it was the practice that Teen Confirmation always happened on Palm Sunday. Before that you met once a week (in the case of our year we had a weekly potluck) starting in the mid-fall.
To be honest I don't remember a whole lot about what we talked about in all those meetings. I do remember that there was some time taken for team-building. I also remember that the Diaconal Minister who was leading us was somewhat out of his depth and that the group got much better once he asked the youth group leader to assist him. There were times when hard questions were asked--both by leaders and by classmates. But the only discrete piece of content I remember for sure is a Christmas Quiz that I have used a couple of times since then.
And within a couple years of our Confirmation a small handful of us were regularly seen on Sunday morning, with a slightly larger handful seen at youth group on Sunday evening.
But what I do remember is those Confirmation services. Pam Sunday as Confirmation day went on past the end of the 80's and into the 90's when I was teaching Sunday School. Which meant that the Palm Sunday service was a LOOOOONG service. You would have a Palm Parade and some sort of Children's Time, then the Sunday School folks would head off . THen the rest of the service would include a full-length sermon, and Confirmation, and often a baptism or two (at the very least from within the Teen Confirmands), and then we might as well do membership transfers that day, and then we had to have Communion of Confirmation Day. The upshot was that it was 2 hours easily. And those of us teaching Sunday School, particularly those of us with the Grade 4-6 age group were going a little bit crazy.
I always try to remember those years when we have special, added, stuff happening in worship.
In that era in that congregation it was the practice that Teen Confirmation always happened on Palm Sunday. Before that you met once a week (in the case of our year we had a weekly potluck) starting in the mid-fall.
To be honest I don't remember a whole lot about what we talked about in all those meetings. I do remember that there was some time taken for team-building. I also remember that the Diaconal Minister who was leading us was somewhat out of his depth and that the group got much better once he asked the youth group leader to assist him. There were times when hard questions were asked--both by leaders and by classmates. But the only discrete piece of content I remember for sure is a Christmas Quiz that I have used a couple of times since then.
And within a couple years of our Confirmation a small handful of us were regularly seen on Sunday morning, with a slightly larger handful seen at youth group on Sunday evening.
But what I do remember is those Confirmation services. Pam Sunday as Confirmation day went on past the end of the 80's and into the 90's when I was teaching Sunday School. Which meant that the Palm Sunday service was a LOOOOONG service. You would have a Palm Parade and some sort of Children's Time, then the Sunday School folks would head off . THen the rest of the service would include a full-length sermon, and Confirmation, and often a baptism or two (at the very least from within the Teen Confirmands), and then we might as well do membership transfers that day, and then we had to have Communion of Confirmation Day. The upshot was that it was 2 hours easily. And those of us teaching Sunday School, particularly those of us with the Grade 4-6 age group were going a little bit crazy.
I always try to remember those years when we have special, added, stuff happening in worship.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Plan B -- A Newspaper Column
We have come to the crowning weekend of the Christian year. This weekend people will gather for worship on Thursday to tell the story of a leaders who washes the feet of his friends. People will gather on Friday to tell the story of a man who was so passionate about, so committed to, his vision of the world that he willingly went to his death. And then people will gather on Sunday to tell the story of a God who overrides the wishes of the world, who shouts a glorious and triumphant YES in the face of the world that said NO.
It is the heart of Christian faith, this Easter celebration. It is when we proclaim that life defeats death, that hope defeats despair, that light overcomes the darkness. Easter, the reality of resurrection is what creates our faith. And yet it is a celebration that raises questions.
Every year about this time someone somewhere starts a discussion by asking something like “Why Did Jesus Have to Die?”. One common answer in Christian thought is that Jesus had to die to save us, to pay the price for our sins. This suggests that the whole reason Jesus is born is not so much to teach and preach but to be a willing sacrifice. The true effect of Easter then seems to be accomplished as much in the death as in God's act to defy that death.
Some of us, however, find that answer troubling. At least one author has gone so far as to suggest that a God who sends God's own Son just to be murdered is guilty of divine child abuse. Some of us find it hard to believe that this is how God works. And so I find myself wondering if maybe Easter as we know it was in fact Plan B.
During the last week of his life Jesus told a story about a hopeful landowner and the tenants who defeated his hope. You can read it for yourself, Luke 20:9-18. A common understanding of that parable is that the landowner is God. God who has sent many messengers to remind people who they could be. God who sends one last messenger. But even then the messenger is rejected and murdered by the tenants who think they have a better way.
Maybe God's hope was that Jesus would be the prophet that caused the world to be transformed through his teaching and preaching. Maybe the hope was that Jesus' preaching that the Kingdom of God is here now would take hold and become a full reality. Maybe the hope never included torture and execution.
So why did Jesus die? Jesus died because the world is NOT what God would have it be. Jesus died because when you are bold (some might say foolish) enough to challenge the authorities in the world they will push back. Jesus died because God's hope did not pan out, because the people of Jesus' day did not launch the great transformation that Jesus proclaimed. And so the powers around Jesus brought him down and executed him as a traitor, a brigand, a troublemaker, a rabble-rouser. The killed him because he threatened to upset the system. Did Jesus expect to be murdered? If he understood the system and the challenge he was to that system he must have known the system would kill him.
Many of Jesus' friends must have believed that the cross was the end of the story. Jesus must not have been the Messiah they thought he was, there was no concept of a Messiah who would die on a cross. Decades later Paul refers to the problem of Jesus' death by calling it a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. The story was over, the hope was gone, the light was extinguished.
Enter God, Stage Right.
The plan has not worked. So we need another plan. And God chooses to act. God chooses to raise Jesus from death. God chooses to prove that God's YES is more powerful than the world's NO.
This is the glory of Easter. We continue to live in a world that falls short of God's hope, that is not yet what God would have us be. But God continues to say YES, it is possible. The power of Easter is not shown on Friday. Friday only reminds us that we continue to block God's hope. The power of Easter is when people of faith experience the Risen Christ. The power of Easter is in life, not death.
It may not have been the original plan. But God took the failure of the world and turned it on its head. And God continues to do that. Thanks be to God! Happy Easter!
It is the heart of Christian faith, this Easter celebration. It is when we proclaim that life defeats death, that hope defeats despair, that light overcomes the darkness. Easter, the reality of resurrection is what creates our faith. And yet it is a celebration that raises questions.
Every year about this time someone somewhere starts a discussion by asking something like “Why Did Jesus Have to Die?”. One common answer in Christian thought is that Jesus had to die to save us, to pay the price for our sins. This suggests that the whole reason Jesus is born is not so much to teach and preach but to be a willing sacrifice. The true effect of Easter then seems to be accomplished as much in the death as in God's act to defy that death.
Some of us, however, find that answer troubling. At least one author has gone so far as to suggest that a God who sends God's own Son just to be murdered is guilty of divine child abuse. Some of us find it hard to believe that this is how God works. And so I find myself wondering if maybe Easter as we know it was in fact Plan B.
During the last week of his life Jesus told a story about a hopeful landowner and the tenants who defeated his hope. You can read it for yourself, Luke 20:9-18. A common understanding of that parable is that the landowner is God. God who has sent many messengers to remind people who they could be. God who sends one last messenger. But even then the messenger is rejected and murdered by the tenants who think they have a better way.
Maybe God's hope was that Jesus would be the prophet that caused the world to be transformed through his teaching and preaching. Maybe the hope was that Jesus' preaching that the Kingdom of God is here now would take hold and become a full reality. Maybe the hope never included torture and execution.
So why did Jesus die? Jesus died because the world is NOT what God would have it be. Jesus died because when you are bold (some might say foolish) enough to challenge the authorities in the world they will push back. Jesus died because God's hope did not pan out, because the people of Jesus' day did not launch the great transformation that Jesus proclaimed. And so the powers around Jesus brought him down and executed him as a traitor, a brigand, a troublemaker, a rabble-rouser. The killed him because he threatened to upset the system. Did Jesus expect to be murdered? If he understood the system and the challenge he was to that system he must have known the system would kill him.
Many of Jesus' friends must have believed that the cross was the end of the story. Jesus must not have been the Messiah they thought he was, there was no concept of a Messiah who would die on a cross. Decades later Paul refers to the problem of Jesus' death by calling it a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. The story was over, the hope was gone, the light was extinguished.
Enter God, Stage Right.
The plan has not worked. So we need another plan. And God chooses to act. God chooses to raise Jesus from death. God chooses to prove that God's YES is more powerful than the world's NO.
This is the glory of Easter. We continue to live in a world that falls short of God's hope, that is not yet what God would have us be. But God continues to say YES, it is possible. The power of Easter is not shown on Friday. Friday only reminds us that we continue to block God's hope. The power of Easter is when people of faith experience the Risen Christ. The power of Easter is in life, not death.
It may not have been the original plan. But God took the failure of the world and turned it on its head. And God continues to do that. Thanks be to God! Happy Easter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)