I'm not so sure about that

There seems to be a prevailing attitude on the part of some, that religious institutions and religious people should be held accountable for acts of violence or harassment towards homosexuals.  There seems to be little effort to determine whether people who commit acts of violence towards gays are actually from a religious background.  Rather, there is the assumption that religious idealogy leads to violence against gays (with little or no evidence), and that this assumption justifies pressuring religious people and institutions into changing their beliefs.  

Well, I seem to be blessed with a good memory, at least in some respects, and I remember being in junior high school and hearing gay slurs. Looking back, I didn't get the sense that the people uttering those comments were particularly religious.  I got the sense they were idiots (and I mean no disrespect to mentally disabled people when I say that).  As a quiet Christian kid, to be honest, I would not have even really understood what they were saying, and those words would not have been acceptable to me, or part of my vocabulary. As an adult, I'm inclined to think that bullying of gays or more likely, the appearance of being gay, has more to do with adolescent insecurity and fears about their own emerging sexuality and emotional confusion that seems to characterize those years.  Adolescent anxiety combined with immature behavior and peer pressure, I suspect, has more to do with gay bashing than religious influence. 

But I want to say something else here.  Firstly, I want to ask a question.  Do people really think that little children sitting in Sunday school are being told to love their neighbour, love people and be kind to people, but then those people over there, be mean to those people?  Is that what people think? I remember someone saying that if you look historically at the list of problems in schools, discipline, violence, and so forth, that you can almost trace to the year, that when behavior problems started going up, was when religious instruction was taken out.  Now, I'm not arguing for religious instruction in schools here, and you can look up the statistics for yourself, but I would be inclined to predict that religious instruction is more likely to affect social behavior positively than negatively. And the reason why I believe this is because I see that positive influence in myself on an ongoing basis. Every week that I go to church I leave thinking that I am so glad I went, even when I didn't want to go, that I'm better for having gone.  My week seems to get off on the right foot.  I feel better about myself.  I feel better mentally and emotionally, not to mention spiritually of course, and I'm reminded that I am commanded to love and care for others, despite my sometimes cranky nature. I'm reminded that I have a responsibility not only to myself, but that I am called to love and serve others. And that's pretty much what the medical evidence shows, that people who are practicing in their faith are healthier and happier than those who are not regularly involved in a faith community. I believe the evidence may also show that those practicing their faith tend to give back more to their communities, but I'll have to check that one.  All this despite whatever tendency I personally might have towards isolation and despair. Maybe that's why I feel a certain affection for the new atheists, because I see a lot of myself in them.  My inner curmudgeon is Christopher Hitchens (lol).  If I wasn't a Christian, I am quite sure that I would be a very bitter and cynical person.  I might even find myself doing something like writing a book trashing Mother Theresa, but I digress.  Nobody's that nice. Nobody could possibly be that nice.  She must have another motive somewhere (lol).  Grumble grumble grumble.

What I'm trying to get at is this.  I think contrary to popular assumption, more often than not religion is a reminder to people of how to treat ourselves and others, to take care of ourselves and the larger community, and I think we as human beings need those reminders.  We need to be reminded of ethical standards, and it is for this reason that I would be more inclined to guess, generally speaking, that it is more likely to be a child that doesn't have a religious influence in their lives, than one who does, who is more likely to bully another child who appears weaker than them.  Please don't misunderstand me,  I'm not saying that non-religious people do not teach their kids ethical standards, but it would be one less place that they would be receiving that instruction on a regular basis.  Maybe I should rephrase that, some people have naturally gracious personalities, and some people, children especially, seem to need more reinforcement than others, but I would expect to see a lower incidence of bullying on a large sample of children from faith communities over not having a faith background, contrary to the popular assumption which seems to imply the opposite conclusion.

Finally, something to think about, why from an evolutionary perspective should I be concerned with the well-being of someone in a far off corner of the world, with no relation to me or someone who is weaker than me, etc., also with no relation to me, who may be competing with me for limited resources? To answer my own question, because that person is created in the image of God, as am I, and therefore all people have an intrinsic worth, and should not be degraded or humiliated, despite whatever base instincts we all possess. I find it very interesting that public schools, void of religious training as they claim to be, now talk about being communities of character, etc.  Why, because they have to, because we, unlike our animal cousins, cannot seem to get away from ethical issues which demand the moral training of children. Why is that, and what is the difference anyway, between secular ethics and religious training on a practical everyday level? I'm betting that if you looked at secular ethical training, it would have many common characteristics and content with religious training. But the question is, which is the stronger reminder, and which has the deeper grounding or coherence? Don't bully people because that's not nice, even as it becomes increasingly clear as the child gets older, that the way of the world is more often about competition than cooperation, or treat people as you wish to be treated, because one day you will stand before an almighty God, who knows your every thought, word and deed? One difference between secular ethical training and traditional religious training would be that the Muslim or the Christian or the Jewish kid believes that they will one day be held accountable for their actions, even if that smaller and weaker kid is just a little lower on the pecking order, the natural order, and even if no one is looking.

Understanding our Differences

Desensitization of homosexual behavior seems to be the goal of a number of images I have observed of late, most recently a series of ads put out by the Benetton clothing company depicting religious and political leaders in homosexual embraces. That'll go over well, I thought to myself, shaking my head, when I saw the one with the Pope and a leading imam.  I think Benetton needs a class in worldview relations and to demonstrate what I mean I'd like to use a little analogy.

Imagine for a moment that we have two groups of people, the bacon-eaters and the non bacon-eaters.  I hope I'm not offending anybody with this analogy.   The bacon-eaters believe right down to their core that they were born to eat bacon.  They insist on it. It is how they define themselves individually and collectively. The non bacon-eaters believe right down to their core that eating bacon is down right wrong. They insist on it too.  It is how they define themselves as individuals and collectively -too. The bacon-eaters as a minority feel discriminated against, in a majority non bacon-eater world and feel the need to convince the non-bacon eaters and everyone else that their anti-bacon stance is discriminatory and proceed to place images of people eating bacon in key places in hopes to influence people for the better they figure.  They call the non bacon-eaters names like baconophobe, saying you are anti-bacon, you hate all bacon-eaters!  You are bad you non bacon-eaters, you need to change and accept all people whether they eat bacon or not! How well do you think that's going to work?

So continuing with the analogy, we have two people, one is a bacon-eater, we'll call him Frank.  One is a non bacon-eater, we'll call him Dan. Frank is very mad at Dan because he knows he is an ultra conservative non bacon-eater and he himself is a bacon eater activist.  They happen to work at the same grocery store and have lunch in the same lunch room.  Frank decides that he is going to convince Dan once and for all of his need to accept bacon whole heartedly and proceeds to put posters of bacon all over the lunch room, on the walls, on the fridge, and in Dan's sandwich.  Okay I'd better stop now.  How do you think this is going to make Dan feel? Oh, and did I mention that Dan's family hasn't been eating bacon for 3500 years? Hmmn. And then Frank proceeds to be upset when Dan declines to lend him 20 bucks. Anybody see where I'm going with this? What makes the bacon eaters so convinced that if they put up enough posters of bacon that the non bacon-eaters are going to start eating bacon after 3500 years?  Just asking.

But I do have an idea, what if Frank, rather than trying to change Dan's mind about Bacon, went to Dan and said " Dan,  I understand that you can't eat bacon, because that is your personal beliefs, that is how you identify yourself, but can you also understand Dan, that I was born to eat bacon! That is how I define myself.  That is how bacon-eaters define themselves. Can we respect our differences Dan, you're right not to eat bacon, my right to eat bacon, and agree to disagree here?" Would that work better?

I don't know.  I can't speak for other people but I can tell you as a theologically conservative Christian and a social conservative at heart, that debasing my deepest beliefs and convictions just leaves me feeling hurt and angry and frustrated.  It doesn't change my mind about anything.  It just drives a wedge.  For me, what got me thinking about this issue in a different way, was when I began to understand my own religious history, and how it was foundational religious concepts, followed by religious wars between Catholics and protestants in Europe that ultimately paved the way for the development of human rights and minority rights in the western world.  Speaking to religious minorities here, what if we were to think of gay rights in the way that we think of religious rights?  That we as Christians or Jews or Muslims have deep differences between ourselves and yet we respect each others right to disagree, to worship differently.  Yeah I know, we're all afraid of that slippery slope (when everything becomes an issue of individual rights), but I just don't see this culture war leading to anything good.  I see it dividing people.  And let me say as an evangelical Christian that contrary to what the mainstream media might think, I know the heart of evangelical Christians.  The deepest desire of serious Christians is to reach out to people with the Gospel, to love people, it's not to hate anybody.  So to my brothers and sisters in Christ, what better witness to the gay community, than to let them know that we love and accept them as people, to support gay rights, as a way of supporting the person firstly. 

The Jews were a tiny minority in a sea of polytheism historically.  Historically the early church was revolutionary because it stood in such sharp contrast to the culture and the social conditions of the Greco-Roman world.  Do we? When I read the Bible, both Old and New testaments, I don't see a God that is about forcing people to behave morally.  I see a God that is about transformation from the inside out.  We're human beings, as human beings God gives us the ability to make choices, he doesn't force those changes from the outside in.  He invites us into a relationship, and we're changed by that relationship. Why are we forcing people who aren't Christians to act as Christians?  How well is that going to work?  Why not instead support the basic human rights of people firstly, so that they can believe it when we tell them we love them, and invite them into a relationship with us?

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/16/vatican-takes-benetton-to-court-over-advert-showing-pope-kissing-eygptian-imam/

Ending the Culture War

I think I might be changing how I look at some things.  Scares me.  I'm afraid I'm wrong.  It's not easy when you realize that you might be putting yourself right smack dab in the middle of a very heated and difficult conversation, if it is a conversation.
 
I was just listening to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech."  It made me cry as it did when I last listened to it.  Then I was in my early twenties and living in a L'Arche community.  Now I am in my late thirties with a family of my own.  It must have taken so much courage for him to stand up and say those words in the middle of a very hostile time.  What I remember hearing about Martin Luther King from people who worked with him is that he was actually a very quiet person," not at all at ease with people, but when he stood up to speak... for all men are created equal!" I remember a blogger commenting that their visit to a museum dedicated to Dr. King, that the thing that they had left thinking was that he had just been living out his beliefs as a Christian.  Baptist minister, son and grandson of  Baptist ministers, he had a Biblical understanding and hope and yearning for Biblical justice.  He understood that his nation's history and western history had been founded and shaped by Biblical concepts. And so he was able to draw from that well to speak to a larger Christian society who would have also understood, at least more than most would today, the references to scripture that he was quoting.

I left a church when I was 15 because it supported segregation. I was never really a member anyway I suppose, after all I was Catholic and they were Baptist. They were from the southern United States, I was Canadian.  It's funny to me now, when I look back at some of the experiences that shaped me from those years.  How painful it was, to be told as a Catholic kid at a Bible camp, that all Catholics were going to hell, that I was going to hell for wearing jeans and listening to rawk music (with a self assured southern drawl).  Only to go home to be screamed at by your unstable controlling Catholic mother, that you are being brainwashed by Baptists, who the bishop no less, has just confirmed to her, "can be a cult."  How painfully difficult, and yet it was during those years that I really found my faith, and years later I realized that I knew how to talk to protestants and I knew how to talk to Catholics as well. Now I find myself in a similar situation, where I understand social conservatives, because I am one in many respects, and I'm beginning to understand where the gay community is coming from too.

My understanding of how human rights developed in the western world is that the key concept is Judeo-Christian, that human beings are equal because they are created in the image of God.  If you stop to think about it, this is certainly not an evolutionary idea, or an enlightenment idea, because from an evolutionary worldview people (or members of a species) are not equal because some members are stronger, brighter, faster than others.  The enlightenment focused on humanity's potential for and through, reason.  Some people have more reasoning ability than others.  No, it is neither.  It is a distinctly Judeo-Christian concept.  That all people are equal, black or white, Jew or Gentile, homosexual or straight, male or female, rich or poor, disabled or abled, street person or Queen of England, because they are created in the image of God. Because God desires to know each of them, loves each of them, counts the hairs on the head of each of them. It is this foundation that forms the basis for western egalitarianism. That concept began to shape western society, and governance (as it was Christianized after Constantine), and as a consequence of the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation between Catholics and Protestants, both began to realize that the cost was too great, and so began the concept of religious freedom and rights.  Understandably, with the United States with a more Protestant heritage, wanted to enshrine those religious rights with the separation of church and state.  My understanding is that it was not intended to mean what it has come to mean, almost exclusively freedom from religion.  It was intended to keep one denomination from gaining control and persecuting other denominations.  This certainly makes sense when viewed through an historical context.

As a social conservative I understand where social conservatives are coming from regarding traditional marriage.  They're not crazy, for the record, there is actually a lot of research to back up much of what they are saying.  Societies need traditional marriage.  It is a built-in organic social safety net, it was the social safety net before there were social safety nets. It makes sense that religion, being a stabilizer in societies would want to promote traditional marriage with an understanding for example, that the child born out of wedlock, or growing up in poverty without a father, would be at a disadvantage.  I understood this as a young person because I was that kid from the wrong side of the tracks who knew all too well how difficult it was to struggle against a broken background.  That, and probably my fear of hell from the Baptists (LOL) kept me on the straight and narrow and I became a true conservative.  I worked hard, pulled myself up by my bootstraps, worked to put myself through university, left home and kept working, all this to be told when I was finally getting somewhere, newly married with my own new place, that I was now a bigot and a hatemonger.  Congratulations!  And I was mad as hell, to be quite frank.  I stood on the lawn of the Canadian Parliament buildings with my arms crossed demanding the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage-for the next kid I figured....until I began to realize that this culture war just isn't working.

Just like the Catholics and the Protestants began to realize that killing each other in the name of a swordless Jesus, for a Jesus that said that his kingdom was not of this world, I'm beginning to think that forcing people to share your values, who frankly don't share your values and who probably never will share your values is rather counter-productive. Especially when those people are telling you they want nothing to do with Christianity because of the religious right.  As an evangelical Christian who's heart's desire is to reach out to hurting people and see lives transformed by the Gospel, yeah that seems rather counter-productive.

What if the sign outside the abortion clinic said " Let us serve you, " or "How can we help you?" What if the church got behind gay rights as a way of saying that God loves homosexuals. What if the overwhelming majority of signs at a gay pride parade said " We're here to support the person." What if we focused less on the sin and began to focus more on loving the sinner, less on preserving traditional marriage, less on legislation, and more on supporting the people in our neighborhoods who's paradigms may not fit our own?  I was thinking the other day, if I was someone who was struggling with same sex attraction, who'd never set foot in a church, how would I know that Jesus loved me?  How would I know that I was welcome in a church, in any church?  I wasn't thinking that when I was standing on Parliament hill defending the traditional definition of marriage, but I'm beginning to look at the church from the outside looking in, and I'm remembering how that lonely fifteen year old kid, myself, stood on the doorstep of that Baptist church for a very long time in the cold, hearing the Christmas Party with the sweets and the lovely sweaters and the skirts and the lovely southern manners, only to finally walk away, alone. They didn't really want to know me, I knew it. They didn't believe I was really a Christian, how could I be, after all, I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt.  

I'm Here to Support the Person.

Lifestyle choices.  We all make them.  Some of us drive hummers, some of us drive smart cars.  Some of us join a gym, some of us prefer to eat Doritos in front of the tv during prime time.  Some of us, oh you see where I'm going with this, enough said.  People make different lifestyle choices, we all agree and disagree on our fellow citizens' personal choices.  We all have a right, within the bounds of the law as it stands, to make our own choices.  We also have the right to disagree with each other on our choice of food, entertainment, place of worship, occupation, and so forth.

So if I was going to say to someone, "you bleep bleep bleep bleepin bleep, you bought a hummer," what would be wrong with that statement? I would say that the part that would be wrong would be "you bleep bleep bleep bleeping bleep." I have every right to disagree with someone for buying a hummer do I not? I also have every right to disagree with someone's lifestyle choices if those choices go against my personal beliefs. I have a right to my own beliefs, you have a right to your own choices.  We have the right to disagree with each other.  What neither of us has the right to do is to abuse, either verbally or physically, the other person for a behavior that we disagree with.  You do not have the right to abuse me because I disagree with your lifestyle choices, nor do I have the right to impose my beliefs on you.

What I see with the gay rights movement, generally speaking,  is that they don't seem to see the difference between people honestly disagreeing with their lifestyle, and people who would abuse them.  They seem to lump everyone into the same basket. I have never abused or treated a homosexual unkindly in my life, and yet because I disagree with the gay lifestyle, I'm branded as a hate mongerer and a homophobe within the culture of the gay rights movement, simply for disagreeing.  Where's the tolerance or acceptance in that?  Where's the respect for diversity in that?

The important thing as a society, is that we agree that there is an accepted standard of conduct regarding the treatment of people, not that we all have to agree on political or controversial issues or lifestyle choices.  For the gay community to demand that everyone accept their lifestyle, and give no consideration to the fact that this demand contradicts the personal beliefs of millions if not billions of people is crossing a line.  It's crossing the personal boundaries of millions of people in demanding that everyone change their personal beliefs to conform with the GBLT community's convictions, or face being labelled. If I were writing the script for the gay rights movement, I would say something like, "you can disagree with my lifestyle, feel free, but you do not have the right to abuse me." I would de-emphasize sexuality, and instead emphasize our common humanity and ethical standards.  That's my suggestion.  I think that's where the gay rights movement alienates a lot of people, because they seem to insist, to use an analogy, on shoving meat in the face of vegetarians, and then insist on their right to be outraged when people are offended. I would be happy to stand on the sidelines of a parade to support people.  I am not going to go out of my way to see any standard of decency mocked and  ridiculed.

So anyway, I've had this recurring idea, that if I were going to go to a gay pride parade, and I never have to be honest for the above reasons, I was thinking I would like to wear a t-shirt that says, "I'm here to support the person." Feel free to let me know how you think that would be received. My hope is that in time reasonable people will find common ground on some of these very controversial issues.

Explaining the ex-gay movement, what it is, what it isn't.

I was reading an interview recently with Lady Gaga where she was asked, "how gay are you?"  For some reason this question stayed with me and I later realized it's significance, the reality that a public claim of being "born this way," becomes a pubic liability if the person later changes their mind, as in the case of Ricky Martin coming out, and then talking about a "genuine" relationship he had had more recently with a woman.  It reminded me of something a friend of mine had said some time ago.  She had struggled with same sex attraction for years and was commenting that it was interesting to her to "observe dynamics within the gay community, how some people self-identify as homosexual, they're comfortable with it, and then there are others..." The point I'm leading up to here is what some of us have thought for a long time, that the issue of sexual identity is not as neat and tidy as current public discussion will allow to be said.

Why is that? Why is the politically correct version of this issue that homosexuality is always static and always inborn?  I think it's because it is seen as necessary in the struggle for equal rights to maintain this claim.  I don't see why it should be. The foundation for basic human rights is that someone is a human being, is it not, regardless of how they choose to define themselves? As another example religion is sometimes thought to be cultural or inherited, while for other people it is a choice. Regardless, we recognize freedom of religion as a basic human right.  Why should a person's sexual orientation be any different?

The reason why I think it's important to talk about this however, is because the limitations put on the current discussion, I believe could be leading to discrimination in other ways. The reality is that we simply do not know that homosexuality is always inborn and always unchanging.  How on earth could you prove such a claim?  It sounds much more reasonable to me to say that this is a complex issue, that it varies from individual to individual, that there could be both genetic and environmental factors.  Isn't that what social science says about everything else?  So may I politely ask, where is the nurture factor in this discussion?  And may I also humbly ask, what about the individual's right to choose?

And so what about the "others," my friend was referring to?  What about another man I knew, that was going to counselors who repeatedly told him that this was just something he had to accept about himself, that was "unchangeable" even though  he wanted to change?  What about the person that says that they were bullied so much in the schoolyard that they began to believe the things that were said about them, later to realize as an adult that those things weren't true? What about the woman that told me that her early life left her longing for something that she went looking for in a relationship with another woman?  Do their stories count? What about the statistics that show that homosexuals are significantly more likely to have been abused as children? What about the rights of the counselor or researcher, etc. that disagrees with the standard therapy? Do they have a right to their medical or professional opinion? Or the thing that concerns me most, that young people may be labelled as being homosexual for feelings that are more often than not, just a normal part of growing up. I'm also concerned that those same young people are being told that all lifestyle choices are equal, without being told the medical risks.  I mean this in a very general sense.

And finally, the issue of faith based ministries who are reaching out to the gay community, do they have a right to exist?  Do homosexuals have the right to choose to be part of such a ministry? Why can't we just say that there are different options out there for different people?  Why are such ministries being black-listed and mis-labelled by the gay community? ( Or to be fair, are these ministries actively engaged in stifling the gay rights movement? Is it a fair assumption that they are? That's another question.)  I have heard people say that their lives were transformed by such ministries.  I've heard other people say that they walked away from similar ministries.  Again I ask, why can't we just acknowledge that there are different options out there for different people? Ex-gay ministries (let me know if you know of a better term) are not being forced on anyone.  They are there for the person who wants them.  Ex-gay ministries are not trying, in any way to diminish the fact that same sex attraction is a very real struggle for some people. I think this is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes in. The homosexual community appears to perceive that the term "ex-gay" somehow de-legitimizes their struggle.  I don't think religious ministries would see it this way.  From the perspective of a religious ministry the emphasis is spiritual.  From a Christian perspective (not all ex-gay ministries are Christian), the emphasis is that as Christians we find a new identify in Christ, and so this is how we choose to self-identify, as Christians. What is a lifelong struggle for some people, who have a greater hope in Christ. To be clear however, I'm also not de-legitimizing the work of ex-gay ministries in saying this either because I think the results speak for themselves, that this seems to work for some people.  Perhaps some of these general methods could be adopted by secular counselors even.  I'm not a counselor, I'm just suggesting that perhaps different streams could learn from each other rather than a one size fits all approach. And that is ultimately what I'm advocating for here, that we respect the autonomy of the individual in the self-identifying process, and that we search these issues with respect for the whole person, including the individual's personal beliefs. Thanks for listening.

Agreeing with Dawkins and Hitch

So often when I've been in the middle of an intense discussion, otherwise known as an argument, I've known the frustration that goes with not being able to make the other person see where I'm coming from, or to hear them admit that maybe, just maybe, I might have a point too.  So, in the true Christian spirit of treating others the way I would want to be treated I sincerely ask the question, where are the new atheists coming from, what is their point? I have enough of a background in the humanities to have observed that often artistic or intellectual movements are a reaction or response to other ideas or conditions that have gone before. This is also true of atheism historically, that it has often been an intellectual or emotional response to a failed, corrupt, or inadequate religious response. Certainly institutional religion has made plenty of mistakes historically, Christianity included.  I think a lot of people out there need to hear that admission.  I know growing up in the Catholic church, I felt like I was talking to a wall, in a protestant youth group, I felt like I was being suffocated.  There is much in my own background that might have left me running for the religious door. A lot of people have been hurt by institutionalized religion, and there is no failure as a Christian in admitting that Christians are people too, often prone to the same blind spots as everyone else. Blind, unthinking, religion has had and has the potential for much harm.  This is where I agree with the new atheists, that blind unquestioned ideas can and often do have the potential for harm in society.  We need to be free to ask questions and weigh evidences.  We need to be free as individuals to disagree without fear of being persecuted.  The new atheists have much to offer in this reminder. Where I would disagree with Dawkins and Hitchens, is their assumption that they know the answers before they really bother to ask the question, or bother to investigate the claims, where they lump all religious ideas into one caricature stew and where they fail to question their own assumptions.  This is where theirs becomes a blind unthinking atheism, and of this we need to be wary as well, because any idea can become dogmatic, and any ideology can become a corrupt power structure, as atheism has historically been as well.  They refuse to see this, calling the example of modern China or the Soviet Union "state religions," refusing to acknowledge that it was the policy of these "state religions" to eradicate religion, resulting in unspeakable unparallelled bloodshed.  Why, why asks Dawkins, "would an atheist do such a thing," why indeed Richard, because they saw religion as a problem, as do you. If only it were that simple.

Confessions of a Social Conservative

I remember standing on the grounds of the Canadian Parliament buildings in 2005 as bus load after bus load of people arrived, thousands upon thousands of people to form a clearly multicultural, multi-religious crowd, all there to support the traditional definition of marriage and to say no to same-sex marriage.  I had arrived late, alone, and was standing near the back, listening to the speeches and watching curiously as the event unfolded.  People carried signs saying "one man one woman," and "I need a father and mother."  I stood there with my arms crossed. I had read or heard what seemed to me to be a few too many anti-Christian comments and I was angry. To my left not far behind me was, relatively speaking, a tiny rag tag group of people stood in a circle. One young man had a sticker on his knapsack that said "Lord, save us from your followers."  Another held a drum, they stood there and then began to chant in unison with their drum, repeating over and over, "stop the hate."  I turned to look at them, shocked at what they were saying, "What?!" I'm sure I must have mouthed the question and stared at them with disbelief.  Is that what they thought?

The next day the papers showed a handful of counter-protestors, and ignored the mass of people. Some time later same sex marriage became legal in Canada.  The definition of marriage was also changed to accommodate same sex unions.  My memory is that it was put through right before Canada Day which left me in a very un-celebratory  mood.  More than that, it left me feeling very angry at the society that I found myself living in.  For several years I wrestled with this intense deep seething rage and I did not know why.  Why did I feel this way?  I did not want to feel this way, and yet I did. Did I secretly hate homosexuals and not realize it?  No, why would I do that, I asked myself.  So why did I feel so much anger?

I grew up in a small town in northern Nova Scotia, the youngest of four children born into a working class family.  In short, my upbringing was a mess, my mother came and went more times than I can remember, and when she was there she made my life a living hell.  By the time I was seven, I would dream that maybe someday my parents would get divorced. I had heard that this happened sometimes and things got better. They finally did get divorced when I was in university, to make a long story short, but nothing was ever settled and my mother continued to come and go. My father died when I was 21 and my mother came back the day after his funeral, told myself and my sister that my father was dead, that it was my fault but that I could do things her way now or I could get out.  I remember seeing involuntary thoughts flash in my mind, what I would do if I had a gun.  I wouldn't know what to do with a gun.  I called my best friend and she came and got me.

I tried for ten years after that to make peace with my family and came to the conclusion that I had to think of my own well being.  I came to this realization after having my first children, preemie colicky refluxy twins that  needed and deserved all of my energy. I knew then that I would have to have my head screwed on straight to take care of them, and so I have been estranged from most of my surviving immediate family since that decision. A short time before this, when the same-sex issue was heating up in Canada, I was newly married, had achieved a bit of personal happiness after a very long difficult road and I was angry because I felt like society was again pointing it's long finger at me, you're bad, just as I had been told every day of my life. I realized that was why this issue was so personal for me, and why it had brought up so much emotion. Yes I believed in the traditional family, but not as someone who wanted to build a picket fence around myself, but as someone who knew what it was like to struggle against not having a family, not having support.  And that is why I also identified with that little rag tag group of people, outside that mass of people, and that set me up for a heck of a personal conflict.

This many years later, I'm still trying to sort all this out, but can I tell you, that those people carrying signs that day do not hate homosexuals.  They believe in the traditional family.  Can anyone see the difference?  It's not who they are against, it's what they are for, and the perceptual differences on this issue continue to divide, with both groups failing to understand where the other is coming from.

I was asking myself today if same sex marriage were put to a vote today, how would I vote?  I think if it were laid out as a civil matter, allowing religious institutions the right to decline, I'd be okay with it.  I say that while thinking of my neighbors, past and present, gay couples who are raising children, and I think, why wouldn't I support them? I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, I struggle with those thoughts too.

May I just end by saying, I remember a number of years back I was with a couple of friends and we were discussing music.  One friend commented to the other friend about what in his opinion was the greatest rock and roll album ever!  The other friend responded, oh, oh that, -it was out of tune. I remember watching the first friend's body language after hearing that comment, that the greatest rock and roll album ever was out of tune, as he motioned and his facial expressions indicated that he was ready to hit the second friend.  Friends, when someone attacks something that is near and dear to our heart our instinct is to lash out.  That is not a religious quality, a Christian quality, a secular quality, that is a human quality.  I just ask that we try to remember that when we hear angry comments from the other side of the political fence.  A professional counselor one told me that anger is just the tip of the iceberg, it's everything else underneath the water that tells a story.

Who's right is it anyway?

There's a growing divide in our culture between left and right, Christian and secular.  As for me, I'm trying to find common ground ground where I can.  I really hope to avoid descending into good guy/bad guy talk.  If you find me talking like that feel free to let me know. We all need accountability, myself included. I would like to take a look at some of the most divisive issues and try to shed light where I can.  Not that I have all the answers by any means because I certainly don't.

One issue that has weighed on my heart a lot, and I do mean a lot, I cannot say that strongly enough, is the very public divide between homosexual rights advocates and traditional family advocates.  This is a very complex issue and where I get confused personally is how to sort all this out at a government services level, so I'll save that discussion for later.

Something I do wish to clarify however, is this popular assumption that to disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is no different than actively promoting hatred of homosexuals as people.  (Big sigh). I think the Bible is very clear. I also think church tradition (not to mention the design of nature) makes it very clear that homosexuality is not how God designed us to be in relationship.  Church teaching has always been, celibacy in singleness, fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman.  This has never changed, to my knowledge this has never been an issue in the church until recent times. I find it interesting that all major religions (correct me if I'm wrong) agree on this point. I'll let other faith groups speak for themselves, though
as a Christian I feel the need to say, there is a huge difference between disagreeing with a behavior and hating the individual that does that behavior.  Love the sinner, hate the sin, is the old adage.  You love the person because you recognize that everyone is a person created in the image of God, God's child that God loves and knows personally.  You recognize the intrinsic worth of the individual as a unique soul with a unique spirit.  You hate the sin, because you know that the sin (in all of us) is what separates us from God, is what harms the relationship.  Perhaps this is easier to understand in human terms. You love the person who commits adultery, you hate adultery because you know it is the vice that has done so much damage to the person's relationship with their spouse and possible children.  Does that make sense?  I do not hate shoplifters, people who commit adultery, people who lie (and we all have, so pretty soon I'd have to include myself here), so can you believe me when I say sincerely that I do not hate homosexuals?  It grieves me that people seem so readily to jump to this conclusion or to associate the average person of faith with someone who is capable of committing extreme violence, as in the case of Matthew Shepherd, often without even bothering to check that people who abuse homosexuals are even from a Christian or other religious background. I have to ask the person who disagrees with me on this point, do you hate everyone that you disagree with? Do you hate everyone who does something that you think is wrong?  As a Christian I can assure you that I am held to a higher standard than that. The words of Christ are etched in my mind," love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you."  So often I have reflected about how impossible that standard is.  How do you love the person that is about to make you lunch for a lion? How do you bless the person that is about to tie you to a stake, or worse, a wagon wheel or a cross?  Only through prayer and a relationship with a holy God, is my humble conclusion, because I can't do it. But for the record I have no trouble loving someone who struggles with same sex attraction, perhaps because I see many of my own struggles in this larger issue.  Many of us, including myself, know how it feels to feel marginalized, to feel excluded, to suffer through broken relationships, and so often I feel compassion for the gay community, in fact, I identify with them.

Having said that, I think I understand where the failure to understand each other is coming from. To the gay community, who see their sexual preferences as intrinsic to their identity, it must be very hard to separate the behavior from the person, or to understand that to a Christian, the behavior and the worth of the person are separate.  So when a Christian says that they disagree with homosexual behavior, the gay community hears that they cannot accept them as people.  It's a perceptual difference that needs to be clarified.  For the record, I have personally never heard anything said against homosexuals in a church service.  In fact, I've very rarely heard the issue addressed at all.

I know this issue is also an issue in the church at this time.  I know some people would say that they disagree with my interpretation.  (Sigh).  To them may I just say that I have stared this issue down (not once) in the middle of the night and I cannot go where you are going.  I am sorry.  I think it may be becoming obvious that there may be many church splits on this issue, and to that I say, let it be.  Some things you can't compromise on, namely the authority of the Bible and church tradition, because on this authority and this tradition, and the accuracy of such, rests our faith. If we pick and choose what we want to uphold, what's next, the divinity of Jesus, the physicality of the resurrection?  Am I correct in observing that it is the same denominations that I see questioning the church on this issue, that I also hear asking bigger questions, questioning foundations with far reaching implications for the future of the Christian faith, that Jesus and the early church died defending? But let me re-assert that the Christian message that is offered to everyone, is that God loves people so much that he gave his only son to die for our sins, knowing that we could not do it on our own.  This I'm sure all Christians can agree on. For some people it's same sex attraction that is a weakness, for some people it's alcohol, other addictions, and no I don't think that homosexuality is all that different from any other sin.  God offers redemption to everyone who would receive it, unconditionally. God replaces the rules with a relationship with himself and with others and commands us to love one another. None of us are there yet, we're all in process, but in no way does Christianity teach hatred.  In no way are people like Fred Phelps representative of the true Christian message to love your neighbor as yourself.     

So where am I going with this?  It's such a complex issue, but the point I am leading to, is that contained in this issue are two rights groups.  The rights of homosexuals as well as the rights of religious minorities.  Even when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, and with it the said protection of religious minorities within that change of definition, I have never (let me think, nope never) seen a unbiased treatment of this issue with respect to both groups in the secular or public media.  Any interview that I have heard, including with the CBC which is supposed to be representative of the interests of all Canadians has failed to fairly represent where conservative religious groups are coming from on this issue.  Misrepresentation, distortion, attacking questions seem to be the tone of any discussion I have heard.  Fred Phelps seems to find ample coverage, but I have never seen a minister given the opportunity to clearly express or discuss this issue, without the interviewer clearly showing bias against what they have to say.  I fear that this cultural bias could be leading to hatred and discrimination against religious minorities.

All I am asking is that people try to keep in mind that there are two rights groups here.  We need to be concerned about the rights of homosexuals as a society.  We also need to be concerned with the rights of religious minorities as a society.  Do vegetarians have the right to say that they think eating animals is wrong?  Do Jehovah's witnesses have a right to decline a blood transfusion? Do Quakers have the right to refuse to go to war? Do religious minorities have the right to say, even to think, that homosexual behavior is wrong?  Do they?  I'm not so sure they do anymore.  And I think what we fail to realize, is that what may be being lost in this culture, ironically in the name of "tolerance" is freedom of conscience, and that is a great loss indeed.

So where do we go from here?  Like I said at the beginning, I don't have all the answers.  I know in Canada where I'm from, this issue has largely been settled, at least from the perspective of the law and the charter of human rights.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the law and how it works, but I do see clashes of rights on this issue appearing in the courts.  How do we solve those clashes when you have a collision of rights groups?  That's again where I get confused, but something that I've learned in my own experience is that often what is deemed appropriate comes down to asking who's space is it?  The old saying, when in Rome...so to the person who would demand from a Christian adoption agency that they adopt to gay couples or the Salvation Army that is forced to close because they cannot sign a form outlining a politically correct version of what "equality" means, may I ask, can I therefore go to a gay organization and demand to change their mission statement to comply with religious "equality?"  It's a fair question isn't it? Not that I would demand that, because I respect that that's their space.  But is it not fair for me to ask, when are gay rights organizations going to begin to respect the religious rights of religious organizations and their right to disagree? And to be fair, should we as Christians, where the battle for same sex marriage and benefits is still raging, let it go, in the name of loving our neighbor, so that they will know that we support their right to be seen as equal people before the law?  Now some people would say that I'm betraying my own principles in saying that, because I believe that the traditional family is a great need in society, but then I don't need anyone else to tell me that, including the state. My kingdom is not of this world. Thanks for listening.

On thinking I'm Right.

A friend was telling me a while back about a conversation that she had had with her brother in which he had quipped, "the problem with you Christians is that you think you're right!" to which she had shot back, "that's because we are right!" I chuckle recounting that verbal transaction, knowing the individuals and their mutual ability to hold their own in an argument.  But seriously, yes Christians think they/we are right, but so does everyone if you take a moment to think about it. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, secular atheists, Jews, heck even agnostics think they are right that they cannot possibly know, and if they didn't think that, then the reality is that they would think something else and then they would think they were right about the alternative.  To think we are right about what we believe is the nature of belief itself is it not? The thing that is interesting to me is that it often seems that it is secular minded people that I see accusing Christians of thinking we are right, and of proselytizing, while at the same time insisting that a banner of human rights and "western values" be carried around the world, often at at the end of a gun.  Interesting isn't it?  The question I would have to ask is why does it appear that it is historically Christian, now secular countries proclaiming human rights?  I would go further.  Where does that exclusive belief in human rights come from if not from the belief that human beings are created in the image of God? My point being that while secular folks are accusing Christians of exclusivity and proselytizing that they are doing the same thing without realizing that arguably the foundation of their own belief in the unique value of human beings is historically Judeo-Christian. The only difference as I see it, dare I suggest, is that informed Christians have a broader understanding of the foundations of their own worldview which leads them to proclaim many of the same principles with added depth. In other words, the worth of the individual, human rights and human dignity, which is grounded in a loving personal God.
     Having said all this, I think I understand why people are uncomfortable with exclusive belief systems, because they divide.  Yes they divide, atheism divides from agnosticism, Buddhism divides from Hinduism, and Jesus, well Jesus-divides. And if we think that getting rid of traditional religions would solve the problem, rest assured that innumerable ideological and political divisions would have no problem taking their place. My point being is that we cannot escape ideological division. Difference is part of life, and no one is neutral in all this.  The solution, I believe is a free society that allows people to engage themselves and others in thoughtful respectful dialogue and inquiry,  rather than controlling that discussion with an intellectually limiting political correctness which ultimately asserts it's own exclusive truth claims. I hope for a culture that allows me the freedom to believe and profess that belief, while allowing you the freedom to agree or disagree.  Thanks for listening.

Social Justice from the Ground Up

I took part in a social justice course that was offered as a small group through my church a number of months ago.  The thing that I found to be most interesting about this course, was the emphasis that it's creators placed on building relationships between people in communities as a way of enacting social justice.  A key moment in a series of videos that we watched was when the speaker said that often when you look at a difficult situation or poverty in an individual's life, that it's not just a problem of material resources, but that (in my own words) there is often a broken relationship beneath the surface. 

I live in Canada, which by all accounts is further to the socialist end of the spectrum than the United States.  I'm not an economist and I'm still trying to figure out how you balance a capitalist market with caring for the needs of vulnerable people, so I don't want to be seen as making broad statements here, but I will say that this idea of putting all responsibility on government to solve all our problems is ultimately very costly and unsustainable in the long term.  The thing that bothers me, is that I seldom if ever hear people talk about the connection between the breakdown of relationships and the end result that is so often a state price tag.  So often the attitude seems to be, throw money at it via a bureaucrat rather than asking, what could I, what could we do as a society to help my elderly neighbor get her groceries, to volunteer in a soup kitchen, to communicate with my spouse or seek counselling rather than call the divorce lawyer and so forth. 

And so I look around me and I see a tremendous lonliness, I see that lonliness and that disconnect in myself and in others.  I remember someone I respect once saying that we all seem to be made as pieces of a puzzle, needing the other parts for completion. Maybe that sounds corny I don't know, but what if rather than looking at societal issues and lonliness as a problem, that we begin to see an opportunity for relationship in those problems? That maybe that lonliness that may of us feel, is a reminder of a hunger that cannot be filled by a bureaucrat.

A Different Take on Toronto

Burning police cars, broken glass, riot garb, tear gas, people being carried away. Surreal, now repeated in Vancouver. Abuse of power, apparent in Toronto, seems to have been the focus of much of the discussion that surrounded the Toronto G8. How the Toronto fiasco and much more recently the riots that surrounded the Stanley cup loss in Vancouver, interest me is more subtle. Anarchism, radical Islam, Marxist ideologies, violence that demonstrates emerging influences on Canadian or western society. I remember the shock and awe that I felt on September 11, the day the world changed, when I lay transfixed on the sofa all day long, fortunately my day off, unable to move. I had thought my landlady was losing it, speaking in metaphors that morning when sitting eating her breakfast she said to me "America is burning." And yet I sit in a predominantly secular culture with a utopian view of human nature that scoffs at our Judeo Christian heritage. "We don't need God, we can be good all by ourselves," and I ask the question "How much have we taken for granted?" How much of the freedom that we have enjoyed as a society was made possible by a common Judeo Christian ethic? As ethics decline in a society so do standards, so does trust, and inevitably there will be a need for more security, perhaps a wake up call to a culture that has much to say about rights, and little concern for responsibilities.

Reason in Faith.

I'm a big fan of the Veritas Forum, and recently have been enjoying a series of lectures by Oxford mathematician John Lennox, where he talks about some of his experiences and perspectives as an academic and Christian theist. I'm fascinated by the history of science,(in contrast to recent popular opinion),that many of the first scientists were men of faith. More than that though, that science may have come out of a theistic worldview, and that theism may be more consistent with a scientific worldview, in that it provides a basis for rational thought, both for our own capability for reason as human beings, and for the underlying order and rationality that we observe in the created world. I think it's very interesting that what the first scientists expected to find, an ordered universe that flowed from a rational mind, has been confirmed by centuries of science, and that atheism in contrast, may have the potential to undermine that rationality, as there is no basis for intelligence with an atheistic worldview. I'll leave you with a quote and a link.

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
— J.B.S. Haldane (Possible Worlds)

I want to submit to you that my major problem with atheism has nothing to do with Christianity or my belief in God. It has to do with the fundamental worldview postulate that undermines the rationality that I need to do science. That is my chief criticism of the new atheism. John Lennox

http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/1038

My First March for Life

I'd always been a quiet pro-lifer.  I guess somewhere I'd gotten the message that abortion was something that you're not supposed to talk about in polite company, like religion and politics, I guess.  Many years and much thought later, I made the mental connection that someone I respected, that talked about this issue quite openly, publicly, also attended my church.  This got me thinking again. I was inspired by her courage, and I remember being struck by the realization, "we can talk about this!" So, the other week, when I noticed that the March for Life date was coming up, I really wanted to go.  I wasn't sure I would be able to for childcare reasons, but on realizing that my husband would be working at home that day, and so could pick up our older children from school, I scooped my two younger kids up, got them in the van, and headed to downtown Ottawa for the National March for Life. 
With some difficulty I found parking, got my kids' little wagon out of the trunk, tucked in my daughters and followed the cheers.  The thing that I was struck by, perhaps second only to the awareness that hey, I'm not alone, was the realization of how Christian the event was.  I might as well have walked into a church service.  From the Christian rock band that was playing to the clergy that was visable to the church service that closed the event, Christians appeared to be everywhere.  Why is that, I thought to myself?  So many questions that have been flooding my mind for the past several years came again to mind. Where do human rights come from?  Are human rights an intrinsically Judeo-Christian concept?  What is meant by the sanctity of life?  What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  Is this the idea that has shaped western culture? I imagine that I will be wrestling with these questions for some time to come, but it has occured to me that the abortion issue that we struggle with so deeply as a society, may very well be linked to many other larger questions.  http://www.veritas.org/Campus/Recordings.aspx?cid=38#e687

Here goes nothin'

Well hello there,

I've been struggling with whether or not to push the button, that would make my posts much more visible.  Kinda' reminds me of not too distant episodes of "Lost."  Does it matter if I push the button?  Will the world end?  Not likely, but I struggle just the same.  What to say, what not to say.  What will offend, and yet the world goes on all around me and I know that some of the things I think about on a daily basis are very relevant.  They may not be politically correct, but they are very timely.  I would like, as much as possible in my small way to be a voice for understanding in a world that seems to be becoming more and more polarized. I have my own commitments at the end of the day, more so religious than political, I am not without biases, but I do try to understand where other people are coming from.  My husband has told me on occasion that I am an unusually or exceptionally open minded person.  I figure that's a great compliment from someone who lives with me-lol.  I hope it's true.  I remember a well known singer saying that he can walk into a bar and hear singers that are better than him.  He was pointing out that he, in contrast, had paid attention to the fine art of promotion.  So often I think that's true in our society; it's not always the voices that have something to contribute that are heard.  And so if I offend you, please know that it's not personal or intentional.  Feel free to delete me if you must, but from someone that spent a decade of my life writing songs that no one heard, there's a time to say what you think and if you don't think don't say anything, so here goes nothin.'

Where I'm coming from

     I grew up in a small town in northern Nova Scotia, the youngest of four children born into a working class family.  Neither of my parents had much opportunity to gain an education.  They worked very hard to provide for us, but had little to offer in terms of emotional support or guidance. I always thought of myself as the kid from the wrong side of the tracks, struggling to stay focused, to better myself despite what could only be described as a very unhealthy home environment.  I stayed in school and became the first person in my family to graduate from university.  My father died suddenly shortly after I graduated and I left home under difficult circumstances with little direction or support.
     Two things stand out in my memory as turning points from those years. My family might have been described as a traditional/nominal Roman Catholic family.  It was very important to my mother that we be baptized and confirmed as Catholics, and show up occasionally for church on Sunday, so in my mother's words, "when we die they will have a place to bury us. " I was always searching for something more, some deeper meaning or purpose.  When I was 11 years old I had a conversion experience at a very protestant summer camp.  I said a simple child's prayer asking Jesus to forgive me for my sins and invited him into my heart.  In that moment in my mind's eye I saw a red rose open, and that is how it felt, a trans formative experience.  The Bible came alive to me, like it was somehow illuminated where before it was like trying to read a foreign language.  As hard as life continued to be at home I continued to cling to my faith, and it held me through a very difficult daily experience of profound mental abuse.  I will always be thankful to the people who shared the Gospel with me.  I'm not quite as thankful for the scorch marks they left on my psyche.
     So after I left home, I was working at a well known Canadian coffee shop, (to say anything against it might be considered sacrilege to some-lol), pouring coffee, trying to keep from getting fired on a daily basis, sighing and thinking there must be more to life than this, when lo and behold I got fired.  I never really was all that good at the fast food business.  Perhaps I was too thoughtful and much too slow.  I remember wondering what I was going to do, when over coffee a friend suggested to me that I try L'Arche.  L'Arche is a network of communities for persons with mental disabilities and people who wish to live in community with them.  I remember an assistant mentioning to me on one of those first days that L'Arche was based on the beatitudes of the Gospels, blessed are the poor.  I remember opening the Bible to the sermon on the mount and seeing a glimpse of grace for the first time in my life.  I was so excited, because for the first time, I had found a group of like minded people, and I felt like I could be myself.  I remember going to bed that night, my first night in living in community, and sensing a light in the darkness.  That was the turning point in my life.
     Fourteen years later, I still work with persons with mental disabilities (although with a different organization). I'm still learning from them. I live in Ottawa; I'm married to my sweetie and I have four little girls that steal my heart on a daily basis.  It hasn't been easy though.  I don't know when life gets easier.  I'm estranged from most of my immediate family which was not an easy decision.  Got to keep the head screwed on straight if I'm going to be in any shape to care for my children. Perhaps it is these experiences, of loving someone and having to let them go, that has shaped my perceptions of the divisions that I see in the present society that surrounds me.  Someone once said to me, that he had realized after many years that the only person he could change was himself.  I had no idea what he meant. I was young.  I still thought I could change people.  God grant me the serenity.  When I was a teenager I remember thinking that the serenity prayer was a cop-out.  Now I feel I understand it.
     As a child I had a simple beautiful faith that really made all the difference in my life.  My deepest pain (and doubt) throughout my life was that my prayers for other people never seemed to make a whit of difference.  I've come to the conclusion that I can't change other people, but that my own life has been transformed because I've allowed God in.  And so I look at the issues that divide people the most in our society, abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, religion, politics, justice issues.  All the things I'm not supposed to talk about are the things that I feel like I'm bursting at the seams to talk about.  These are the issues that I seem to be drawn to.  Why?  I've often wondered the same thing.  Maybe it's because as a Christian who finds myself living in a secular society, I'm trying to make sense of things.  How does my faith fit into all of this? Why are people so divided on these issues?  Is there anything I can do to communicate or to reach out to people? Many many nights I've wished I could just turn my brain off and go to sleep but so often I can't.
    I don't know how many people will be interested in anything I have to say, if anybody, but this site is an attempt to communicate the Christian message to a secular society, and to try to build a community across what often appears to be an unbridgeable divide. In short, I think there will always be differences between people, we may not change each others views, but maybe we can come to understand each other a little better. The important thing is that we live in a free society and we are free to discuss our differences and free to disagree.  I hope you'll join me.



Sincerely,



Margaret Harvey

Well That's An Interesting Point!

A while back I was listening to a debate in which a design advocate stated that there are zero observed examples of macro-evolution, or change from one species to another.  Well that's an interesting point, I thought to myself.  Finch's beaks, peppered moths, resistance to antibiotics, common examples of micro-evolution, or change within a species as offered as evidence to support a higher concept of change that explains everything.    I've also heard it said that when people look at fruit flies, where there are short observable generations and those fruit flies are subject to radiation, that their genetic structure repairs itself rather than remain damaged through subsequent generations.  Does anyone know of an example of observed change from one species to another?  Just a suggestion, but pay attention when people are citing examples of evolution.  Is that change within or change without?

Building Spaces building bridges

I find myself deeply disturbed by what I see as the growing tensions between different worldviews in the western world.  I'm a Christian, I feel perhaps it's necessary to say that right off the top, what you might call a theologically conservative evangelical Christian, although I think of myself as just a Christian.  I don't hate anybody.  In fact, I've spent most of my adult working life serving some of the most marginalized people in society, namely persons with mental disabilities.  I've always had a heart for the marginalized, perhaps because I always felt that way myself, growing up in a small town, where you feel like you're struggling against your working class background, against family break down, spiritual poverty and emotional abuse. 
So it is with a heavy heart that I try to put this out there, for anyone who might be interested in trying to start a dialogue on some very controversial issues between different people groups.  I don't even know if anyone is going to read this, but I'm going to put an invitation out there just the same.  My invitation to you, whether you agree with me or disagree with me, whether you're a liberal or conservative, secular or Christian, or anything else for that matter.  You're welcome to stay for a while, have a cup of tea and chat.  All I ask is that you do your best to respect me as a person, and I will do my utmost to do the same.  Perhaps we can offer each other a space to disagree, and try to build a bridge to understand each other a little better.  Hope you're having a good day.