One commercial we have been seeing over and over up here is promoting Tim Horton’s coffee shops, almost a national institution up here. It is one of those very few commercials that you don’t get tired of, so I thought my American readers might enjoy seeing it:

The screen here in Canada says it is based on a true story, but I haven’t been able to find any background on it.

I did find this discussion of it, which I think helps capture the emotion of the spot… and the ‘Canadian-ness’ of it as well.

To my state-side friends that might not seem like much. To us it seems a great blessing to be able to gather together, to fellowship, to hear the Word, to play games, to sing our anthem, to know that the gospel message that calls men OUT from the world and all the taints of worldliness is not something we hold to quiet and alone in our little, struggling churches, wondering if we are the only ones. No, it is the great God and Saviour of our souls that unites us, our Lord Jesus Christ. It is his church and we are grateful to be a part of it.

I first met my friend when I was selling real estate to support our work here in Victoria. Another friend referred him to me. One day I picked up my phone at the office and this voice said, “Is this Don the Baptist?” And when I answered “Yes”, the voice went on, “Well I am John the Socialist.” And indeed he is. We get along rather well, in spite of political differences. The story of that house sale is one of my best from real estate days, but we’ll let that go by the wayside, too. John told me the other day they are still in that house, happy with it, and planning to renovate the kitchen soon.

As I said, I ran into John while he was campaigning. We talked about a few things and noted our differences. I was talking to my daughter about it afterwards. I told her that if we lived just a few blocks further west, I’d have a real problem deciding who to vote for. That might come as a shock to those who know my political views – my friend is a member of a party that I think I could almost never vote for. They are through and through socialists, so wrong headed in my thinking that I think it is a complete disaster whenever they actually gain power (as they have a few times in our province)

Why would I be torn if I lived in the next door riding? Well, my friend is my friend for one thing, but more than that, he is a good man, a good dad, a good husband, and, as he said in our conversation, “We share the same values.” In many ways, that is true. His opponent, on the other hand, is the former mayor of my town. He moved over the line so he could run in the other riding. Prior to his political career, he owned a pub… an establishment that profits by exploiting the weaknesses of one’s fellow citizens. I don’t have a lot of respect for that line of work, or for that man, for that matter.

But let’s think of what my friend means by “We share the same values.” How is that so and what makes for the differences between us?

My friend John is a family man, he professes a kind of Christianity (he attends a United Church – a very liberal church in Canada), he is interested in helping people with their problems, he is an advocate for the common man, especially the little man who has no voice in the greater world. All of these things in a general way are things with which I agree, and in terms of looking at the ills of the world, we likely are going to generally see the same needs and be motivated to find solutions to the same kinds of problems.

John seems to think that similar values like that should motivate someone like me to vote for someone like him. I am not sure I could do that. We do look at the problems in a similar way, but we look at the solutions in a vastly different way. John is willing to allow the government to step in, provide programs as solutions, in short, as I see it, to smother individuality. While I have no great faith in the nobility of individuals, I do believe that individuals, rightly motivated, can generally solve most of the problems of life on their own, without government ‘help’. The role of government is to control the unruly and incentivise the productive. So my socialist friend and I diverge widely on our approach to solving the problems we both see and care about.

As I said, if I lived in his riding, I’d be torn… The alternatives are a socialist with a good character vs. an opportunistic exploiter of men who happens to represent a freeish-enterprise party (they aren’t completely as conservative as I would like, but they are all we’ve got in this province). I think in this case I would probably not vote or spoil my ballot. Some would decry that choice, but not voting or protest voting are votes just as much as a positive vote for one or the other candidate. I dearly would like them to put “none of the above” on the ballot, but I am afraid it would win most elections.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

First of all, the third point of the writer, Jim Coggins:

Third, there is an increasingly large number of people who are unconnected to any organized religion. This group probably constitutes the largest group of those leaving mainline Protestant churches (and includes some leaving Roman Catholic and evangelical churches as well). These are people who often consider themselves spiritual without being religious, and who are determined to define their own beliefs rather than accept the doctrine of any religious authority.

This is what we have been dealing with in 23 years of ministry. It is very frustrating to make many efforts to reach lost people in our almost totally (and deliberately) secular society, only to see the gospel simply dismissed. Coggins captures our frustrations with one sentence:

This attitude seems to be especially prominent on the west coast of North America and was encapsulated in a 2008 book by Vancouver Sun religion writer Douglas Todd. Cascadia: The Elusive Utopia describes these people as "the least institutionally religious people on the continent" but "eclectically, informally, often deeply spiritual." [emphasis mine]

In observing what he calls a "shift in power" in the Anglican church, Coggins notes that Anglicanism is increasingly being led by churchmen from the Third World. He says this trend is being paralleled in the Roman Catholic church which is

now relying on immigration to maintain its numbers and is recruiting immigrants to serve as priests.

But he goes on to observe this:

One of the very interesting aspects of the developments within Protestantism is the impact it has had on the old Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. One might have expected evangelicals, as the most conservative Protestants, to have maintained the old Protestant mistrust of Catholicism.

This does not seem to be the case.

He cites three factors in this closer relationship:

1. Co-belligerence on social issues like abortion, etc. [Do we here echoes of fundamentalist criticism of the Moral Majority here?]
2. New common ground on some theological issues (post Vatican II Catholics supposedly have a stronger emphasis on the Bible)
3. Charismatics in Catholicism
4. Increasing support by Catholics of the Conservative Party of Canada

I have to say that I think Jim Coggins is bang-on with his observations. His articles point out the challenges we face here. I urge our American friends to take a look at this series, perhaps subscribe to the RSS feed to get the ones yet to come. I have long maintained that where Canada is, the USA is sure to eventually follow (in an American way, of course). The increasing secularism of Canada is only more pronounced than the secularism of the USA. We need to think about these trends and also think of ways to counteract them in our preaching and evangelism. And trust the Lord, of course!

Google.ca news says there are 599 related articles when I clicked on this link, but once you arrive at the link, it says 89 related articles. I am not quite sure how that works, but the story is undeniably a big story here in Canada and is surely of interest around the world, especially in places where there are many Mormons.

One of the men arrested yesterday was on TV today claiming religious persecution. Now… is this religious persecution, or is this a matter of good governance?

In other words, what should Christians think of this arrest? Should we applaud our provincial attorney general for finally having the courage to prosecute, or should we be ‘friends of the court’ and lend support to the Mormons in this cause on the basis of our own interest in freedom of religion?

It seems to me that this is not an entirely easy question.

Christians particularly have a consciousness of the oppression that comes when one’s beliefs are unpopular or considered antagonistic to the community interest. Although most of us have not experienced physical violence, most have experienced the scorn of outsiders, the belittling speech, the hard faces, and even slammed doors. We have a collective memory of hardships faced by courageous Christians of days gone by who were willing to suffer for things we hold dear. Baptists in particular remember such hardships heaped on their forebears even in North America.

So religious freedom is something we hold dear. We ought to. It was not won cheaply.

But should the principles of religious freedom apply to men who hold multiple wives to be a tenet of their religion? Should we, in a country like Canada, decide to forbid this practice? Can we claim to have religious freedom if we do?

Consider as another example another religion, not much in the news lately, but one that made headlines a few years ago. The Rastafarians insisted on using marijuana as a sacramental substance in their rites.

According to many Rastas, the illegality of cannabis in many nations is evidence that persecution of Rastafari is a reality. They are not surprised that it is illegal, seeing it as a powerful substance that opens people’s minds to the truth — something the Babylon system, they reason, clearly does not want. They contrast their herb to alcohol and other drugs, which they feel destroy the mind.¹

Would we defend Rastafari’s and their use of marijuana as a matter of religious freedom? I think not.

What then is religious freedom? We would insist on it for ourselves and our own beliefs, wouldn’t we?

When we recall the hardships endured by Baptists in early America, we realize those hardships were perpetrated largely by Christian people who came to America in search of religious freedom. Some of them, to be sure, were more interested in freedom for their religion than in freedom of religion. Since the Baptists were outside their religion, they weren’t eligible to enjoy freedom.

Let’s consider polygamy and marijuana use together. These involve actions taken by an individual that are external and impinge on the freedom or rights of others. The use of marijuana is rightly deemed illegal in our country because it isn’t merely an individual’s choice and the effects on himself and his own body alone, but rather it is a substance that alters the mind, impairs judgement and can thus cause devastating consequences on others.

Polygamy could be said to be the choice of consenting adults, but its consequences reach far beyond the emotional/spiritual impact on a set of consenting adults (not to mention the allegations that often the consent is one way or that some parties involved are not adults when the consent is alleged to have occurred). The fact is that polygamy affects the children of polygamy who are unable to choose the ‘lifestyle’ for themselves. There are attendant problems as some of these young people grow up and the boys in particular are said to be shut out of the selection process.

Our state has an interest in protecting the innocent against the actions of others, especially actions that hold a significant potential of harm to others.

There are some who would restrict Christian freedom using this kind of reasoning. They would suggest that the teaching of Christian dogma to children in Christian homes is a similarly deleterious activity, just like polygamy. Terms like ‘psychic abuse’ might be used.

However, it seems difficult to quantify such abuse. Who could raise their own children at all if somehow the belief systems of parents could not be transmitted to one’s own children? Would our state advocate abandoning all moral training? Would our state have any such overwhelming community interest?

On the other hand, if physical abuse (objectively quantifiable harm) were to be occurring in any home, Christian or not, our community would have a duty to protect the victims and restrict the perpetrators by whatever means deemed judicially necessary.

It seems to me that religious freedom, then, is the freedom to believe, to associate, to speak, but it is not a freedom to do everything someone might deem to be required by his religion. Just as my liberty to swing my arm through space ends when your nose occupies the space I am planning to swing my arm, so too religious freedom ends when ‘religious acts’ can objectively be seen to cause harm to other individuals. On these grounds, then, we must side with the state in this case and support the prosecution, conviction, and judicial punishment of our news-making polygamists.

1. see Wikipedia link above for more

That would be the archives of the British Colonist, forerunner to our local newspaper, Victoria’s Times-Colonist.

The British Colonist was founded in 1858 by a man formerly known as William Smith, but better known as Amor de Cosmos. That’s right … ‘lover of the universe’. British Columbia has always been a place for eccentrics.

I fit right in.

You can read a little about the history of the British Colonist here, it is the oldest paper in Western Canada.

The new web-site is a project of the Times-Colonist and the University of Victoria. It contains pdf copies of every edition of the paper from its beginning as a weekly three weeks after the colony of British Columbia was founded. That would be those folks back east, on the other side of the ferry. The colony of Vancouver Island, headed by Fort Victoria, was about eleven years old at this point. James Douglas, the governor for the Hudson’s Bay Company, saw the handwriting on the wall and moved out of Fort Vancouver at the mouth of the Columbia, anticipating correctly the loss of the Oregon territory to the aggressive Americans.

So the archives available begin in 1858 and go through to 1910. They are interesting to browse and are searchable on any term you like. A treasure trove of trivia awaits! (And the temptation to waste a lot of time.)

In these pages you will discover the wild and wacky characters of British Columbia, including the afore mentioned De Cosmos. He sold his paper to his employees in 1860. Thirteen years later, the merged colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia became the province of British Columbia in the new nation of Canada. And Amor De Cosmos became our second premier.

Only in Canada, eh? And only in BC, too.

It is to be expected that smaller, less powerful neighbours will be somewhat jealous of the more powerful next door. I think this is true to America’s south as well as to the north. But for us on the north there is an added sense of competition from sharing the same language, heritage and culture, but not sharing similar positions or power in the world.

Yesterday was Victoria Day in Canada, one of our statutory holidays in honour of Queen Victoria’s birthday. The holiday is set to occur on the first Monday before May 25, even though Victoria’s birthday was May 21. This day is one of our uniquely Canadian cultural events. It is always celebrated with a grand parade in our city, complete with American high school bands from Washington state. (I love to hear them when I get a chance to go down to the parade.) This year, our civic pride was boosted by a band from one of our local high schools winning the band competition.

One of our nation’s senators wrote an article in a Toronto paper yesterday on the occasion of Victoria Day. He made an interesting comment that highlights some essential differences between Canada and America.

Here is his comment:

The role of the Crown in the maintenance of who we are and our own brand of national identity remains a compelling force. Our head of state is not elected. Prime ministers and premiers are elected under the rules of responsible governments reporting to democratically chosen legislatures and parliaments. But the continuity of the state, our underlying values and principles, equality before the law, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence are carried forward by the institution of the Crown.

It reminds all our elected leaders, the civil servants and political staffers who serve in the cause of government or party that there is a higher authority that can and would respond to any effort to violate the Constitution or the core conventions of our democracy and society where the rule of law is supreme. It reminds Canadians that in the kind of democracy we have built, “peace, order and good government” actually reflect a different value set than “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The author of this piece is right about a profoundly different value set between America and Canada. If we as Canadians attempt to define ourselves positively, it is in the notion of “peace, order and good government” … but there we go again, we have to make it clear that that is not the same as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I don’t share his Loyalist optimism in the role of the Crown (largely merely symbolic) in keeping or empowering the continuity of our state or the rights of men under the law. Our legislative leaders quite regularly infringe on these freedoms with all kinds of justifications. The Crown is powerless to do anything about it, nor is the Crown really interested in doing anything about it – she doesn’t even know what is going on in her dominion. In Canada, the crown (though embodied in Elizabeth) is nothing more than an idea enshrined in our documents but gradually being eroded by our politicians.

In any case, I offer these thoughts and a link to this article to help my American friends understand something of the Canadian part of my makeup – though I do not share all the ideas of my nation, I am nevertheless shaped in my prejudices by some of these forces. One’s national myths are not entirely escapable.

Here is a shot from the web-cam on the Malahat, our mini-mountain just north of town over which the highway up-Island travels:

And here is the camera at the bottom of the Malahat, on our side, just about a mile from our house:

I mean… this is Victoria, land of ‘it never snows here’ and home of the Flower Count (which begins in February). And today is April 19.

This is a little nuts!

If you click on the pictures above, it will take you to the web-cams themselves, with updated pics. I suspect that the weather will clear up soon enough, but just thought you might like to see how we are making out in our igloos.

Hopefully everything will be clear enough by time for church tomorrow. We have four families traveling over the Malahat for church.

As a nurse I overheard on a hospital visit last night said, “Global warming?? Humpph!!!”

Fittingly, British Columbia, gets a good dose of attention. The study repeats what many already know about B.C.; that it’s arguably the most “secular” region in North America. That 36 per cent of British Columbians have “no religion,” and another 21 per cent say they’re affiliated with a religion, but virtually never attend.

No surprises here, but perhaps outsiders might be surprised to know it. There is a ready antagonism to the gospel that surrounds us when we witness.

More…

On the ‘default’ position in BC:

In other words, secularism is the default position in Canada, especially B.C. Going to a church, synagogue or temple is now a counter-cultural act.

Even though church attendance is higher in the U.S., a secular ethos also remains strong there. Like Canadians, many Americans consider themselves secular- but-spiritual.

On France, Todd reports:

hardcore secularism is one of the things that makes French people think they’re just as special as Americans think they are.

The situation in Britain is a divide between old and young, with the young politely disinterested in religion, and the net result an even more secular society than Canada.

Denmark has only 5% church attendance, though much more are officially members of the state church.

On Israel:

It surprises many outsiders, but 44 per cent of Israeli Jews are secular; utterly non-religious.

The post is a distillation of Todd’s regular column for the Vancouver Sun. You can read the longer column here for the time being (it may become unavailable eventually).

On the one hand, it is depressing to face the negativity of out and out antagonism so frequently. On the other hand, that means for us that almost everyone we meet is a potential convert. May God grant grace to their souls!

The ant & the grasshopper … Classic Version!

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

The End

The Maple Leaf Version (i.e., The Canadian Version) [with appropriate footnotes to explain things for my non-Canadian friends, eh?]

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. So far, so good, eh?

The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like him, are cold and starving.

The CBC[1] shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper, with cuts to a video of the ant in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

Canadians are stunned that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The NDP[2], the CAW[3] and the Coalition Against Poverty demonstrate in front of the ant’s house. The CBC, interrupting an Inuit cultural festival special from Nunavut[4] with breaking news, broadcasts them singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’

Jack Layton[5] rants in an interview with Mike Duffy[6] that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his ‘fair share’.

In response to polls, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti-Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant’s taxes are reassessed, and he is also fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as helpers.

Without enough money to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The ant moves to the US[7], and starts a successful agribiz company.

The CBC later shows the now fat grasshopper finishing up the last of the ant’s food, though spring is still months away, while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain it.

Inadequate government funding is blamed, Bob Rae[8] is appointed to head a commission of enquiry that will cost $10,000,000.

The grasshopper is soon dead of a drug overdose, the Toronto Star[9] blames it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity.

The abandoned house is taken over by a gang of immigrant spiders, praised by the government for enriching Canada’s multicultural diversity, who promptly set up a marijuana grow op and terrorize the community.

(I got this from my sister and added the footnotes. I don’t know who the original author is.)

[1] CBC = Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, our state-owned television network, sometimes aka ‘Corrupt Broadcasting Corp’ or ‘MotherCorp’.

[2] NDP = New Democratic Party, a political party in Canada left of left of center. Actually, they are out and out socialists.

[3] CAW = Canadian Auto Workers union, one of the most powerful unions in the country.

[4] Nunavut = one of three northern territories in Canada. Territories are like provinces, only less organized. Hardly anyone lives there. They are vast regions of cold cold tundra, mostly. Lots of natural resources, so we like them. Nunavut was carved out of the Northwest Territories (NWT) a few years ago. The rest of the NWT is called the NWT. (In a naming contest, ‘Bob’ came in second. I was hoping for Bob. I am not making this up.)

[5] Jack Layton = political leader of the NDP. Looks a lot like that guy that sells computer training videos on TV.

[6] Mike Duffy = Canadian TV political reporter, but not on the CBC. He broadcasts on CTV, a private television network in competition with the CBC. Only in Canada!

[7] US = The United States of America. Up here in Canada, we are not Americans! Those ants must be medical doctors, all our good ones flee to the USA.

[8] Bob Rae = former provincial premier of Ontario as the head of the provincial NDP. Now a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, he recently won re-election to the House of Commons where he once sat as an NDP Member of Parliament. Only in Canada.

[9] Toronto Star = noted left-wing newspaper in Toronto, Ontario. Most newspapers in Canada are left-wing. The TorStar is particularly left-wing.