On Poverty Reduction...

So I was called a hippie today.... (by someone who is just as much a hippie as I am--and a fellow clergy person) but more on that later.

I was invited to spend this afternoon and tomorrow morning at a meeting to discuss poverty reduction within this community.  And, seeing this as a valuable way to spend my time (although there are lots of other ways to spend that time), I chose to go.

Our first task in this strategic planning process was to define poverty.  Which really is harder to do than it sounds.  I mean in some ways poverty is one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" types of things (although the reality is that often we don't see it when it is right in front of us).  And certainly poverty definitions have a sense of context and perception about them.  What are basic needs and rights when it comes to shelter?  What is a secure food supply?  What makes a safe place?

Then we identified our stakeholders in the discussion.  And in addition to the homeless, and seniors, and those of set/fixed incomes (such as disability), and the working poor, and those who go through episodic poverty (one of the realities of this community is seasonal shut-downs that sometime last for months), we started to realize that all of the community has a stake in reducing poverty.  I suggested it is because of the reality that when the least of us is healthier then we are all heathier (which is the first time I was called a hippy).

We continued to work on vision and mission statements.  And tomorrow we get closer to brass tacks.  In the end the committee that is being formed will not do this work.  The committee will help created a framework for the community to do the work.  Because we need a transformed society to actually do something meaningful about poverty.  And because there are a lot of myths out there (eg: well people just need to pull themselves together and work harder, if people could manage better/work harder they could solve things themselves, it really isn't my problem/doesn't impact me, that everybody has equal chances to succeed).  If we don't engage the community and challenge the myths then we will get nowhere.

One of the interesting things about the day was something really only mentioned in passing.  The committee that has been working on these issues thus far has done some work on determining what a Living Wage would be here.  For a two parent, dual income, family with 2 children that number is both parents working full time at $15.55/hr (in conjunction with federal and provincial tax credits that they would be eligible for).  And then 60% of their income would go to shelter food and child care.  Just for fun I did the math.  That wage, assuming working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year--no vacation time--comes to a gross family income (before tax credits are added in and statutory deductions are taken off) of $64 688.  Which means no frills.

But here is the kicker.  My gross income for this year will be roughly $67 200 (although a third of that is tax free due to the Clergy Residence Deduction which makes a "real" income of closer to $73 000).  Which means we are not all that far above that no frills line.  And if you asked I would not say we were only just above that Living Wage line.  I am still pondering what that means...

So what do you mean when you say poverty?  What is the path to making a difference in your mind and context?  How do you transform your community so that all families within it can thrive?

Trust as a Community....

This week the Psalm reading in the lectionary was Psalm 146.  When I first read it I was seized by verses 3 and 5 which end up reminding us that we can/should trust in God.  Trust, I realized, is a key issue not only in the life of faith but also in life as part of a community.  And so I worked with the sermon title Whom Shall We Trust?. 

From the beginning of the week I knew that there were at least two possible sermons with that question.  Do we take it from a personal/individual basis or from a communal basis?  For a while I thought about doing both in one sermon but that was not a helpful path to follow.  I went with the individual basis.  For Children's Time I drew on my Camp experience and thought I would do some trust falls.  That "fell" flat when Scalliwag daughter was unable to just fall backward and let me catch her.  Then the sermon turned out to be this.

But still there is a part of me wanting to preach the communal side of the question.  As a community of faith do we choose to trust in God as we look to our future directions?  OR do we trust in marketing advice or demographic/sociological studies, or our own ideas?  Given what weekend this is it would have been a perfectly valid approach to take.

A Picture from the Inauguration of the United Church of Canada

Today is Anniversary Sunday in the United Church of Canada.  Tomorrow, June 10, marks our 88th anniversary as a denomination (and how stereotypically Canadian that we were birthed in a hockey arena?).  At present there is a Comprehensive Review Task Group working within the United Church to determine how best to be the church given our current challenges and our outlook into the future.

Theoretically "everything is on the table" with this review.  Major changes are in the air we are told.  Some of us hope these two statements to be true.  Some of us are also a little bit cynical and skeptical about what will come about.  Will it be truly transformative or will it be a fancy way of shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic?  Too often in the past we have been promised transformative stuff and have gotten deck chair shuffling.  Why is that????

I think there are two reasons.  And both are related to trust.  First, there is an alarming (though not really surprising) lack of trust within the church.  So when something major is suggested the lack of trust kicks in and submarines it.  Change rarely has a real chance because people are unwilling to take the risky step into the unknown and/or because they do not trust that the proposed changes are worth it.

At the same time, I am convinced that sometimes the changes are based not on trusting God and listening for a truly transformative answer but rather on institutional preservation.  Again not surprising.  The first thing institutions do is try to preserve themselves.  A normal human reaction.  But this is the church.   This is the body which regularly reminds ourselves that we are not here for ourselves.  This is the body that is called to die to new life, to be a resurrection people.  And so we get tweaking for survival rather than risk true transformation.  But God calls us to transformation.  Do we trust God?

Do we trust that maybe God is calling us to rethink who and how we are?  Do we trust that if we truly put "everything on the table" God can take those random ingredients and turn them into something wholly new?  Do we trust that God is at work in the church today?  OR are we relying on our own intelligence and understandings to find a way to survive?  I am hopeful enough to suggest that it is at best a combination of the two.  On my more cynical days I think that human intelligence and understandings trump trusting in God every day.  And that way we end up avoiding transformation--we end up not being the community God would have us be.

It is tempting to trust in ourselves and our own understandings.  WE can even (in fact we are quite good at it) convince ourselves that we are trusting and listening to God as we do it.  But that is not what Scripture calls us to do.  Admittedly it is hard to listen when we are in crisis, but we have also shown an inability to listen before the crisis.  I just hope we are able to get to the point of living on faith and trust.  If God wants this faith community to continue, if God wants us to truly be resurrection people, we need to do more than shuffle deck chairs.  We need to trust, we need to risk, we need to go beyond who we are.

May God help us to do so.

Amen.

It Comes To Us All.... (Newspaper Submission)

“Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return”

“None of us gets out of this alive”

“We all have a one way ticket out of here”

“To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven...a time to be born and a time to die”

2 proverbs, a line from the traditional liturgy for an Ash Wednesday service, and a line from Ecclesiastes. All about the same topic. All pointing out a truth we sometimes would rather not admit. Some day all of us who live will die. So why do we spend so much energy trying to avoid talking about that?

I know, talking about and preparing for death seems a little bit on the morbid side. And it is certainly more than a little bit depressing. The logical question is why would we want to talk about it at all?

I agree. We don't want to talk about it. But sometimes, as the song says, you can't always get what you want...you get what you need. I believe that we NEED to talk about it. Only that way can we face the reality of death in a way that keeps us emotionally and spiritually and mentally (and even physically) healthy. It may not be comfortable but it is good for you.

I remember a number of years ago I went to the hospital to visit someone. I could see through the window in the door that the patient and the patient's son were talking with the doctor. So of course I waited in the hallway, so as not to intrude. However the Dr. saw me in the hall and came to the door and called me in, saying “you could be really helpful in this discussion”. They were talking about at what point did the patient want medical interventions to stop, at what point was extending life no longer the best option. A hard discussion to be sure. A discussion that not all doctors are comfortable having. But it is a discussion that, in the end, many patients and families prefer to have so that all the cards are on the table.

When we deny the reality and inevitability of death it changes us. And not always for the better. When we are isolated from the reality of death we never learn how to deal with it when all of a sudden it slaps us in the face. This is one reason I suggest that children need to attend family funerals – it helps start the learning process of dealing with death and grief. When we try to deny the reality of death we rob ourselves and our loved ones of the chance to say goodbye when the time comes, or the freedom to name that they are ready to go. When we try to pretend we are immortal then a sudden serious medical diagnosis can leave us babbling in a corner. On the other hand, when we accept the reality of mortality I believe we develop better tools for dealing with the crisis when it comes (although we may still spend some time babbling in the corner).

For many of us, part how we to talk about death and dying involves talking about spiritual questions. Questions about the meaning of life, about what life is, questions which often start with the word WHY. If I can let you in on a secret...some of those questions really don't have answers. We ask questions about what lies beyond death...and end up saying we can't really know until we are there. But it is my belief that deep spiritual questions are not always (if ever) asked to get a concrete answer. They are asked to open discussion. And as a person of faith I believe that we never have that discussion alone. We never stand in the face of life and death and “WHY?” alone.

We have no choice but to face the reality of death eventually. Some day we will be faced with the death of a loved one, or we will be sitting in a medical office and get told that we are dying. We can try to run away from these things if we want. Some people get pretty good at it in fact. But eventually it catches up to us. I encourage all of us to stop running, to stand in the discomfort, and be willing to talk about those realities with our loved ones. We start to talk about it as children and continue till we are old. And we will be healthier for it.

And remember that we never face the hard questions of life alone. In life, in death, in life beyond death, God is with us. Thanks be to God.

ChairLeaders photos (that I couldn't upload yesterday)

looks like I was closer to making it than I was



she wanted to push daddy....

A Day in a Chair

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?????

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?

Book 5 of 2013 -- the geek handbook

I got this book for my birthday.  Apparently my mother saw it in a bookstore and thought of me immediately.  And everyone else in my family seems to think it was an appropriate gift.  Can't for the life of me understand why...must be that they feel I need to be trained in how to be a geek.  Right?  No??

A delightfully mindless read.  An introduction to meeting your own inner geek (not that I would know what that is like of course). 

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:

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?

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.

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.