We Catch Glimmers

"Religion as a word points to that area of human experience where in one way or another man comes upon mystery as a summons to pilgrimage; where he senses meanings no less overwhelming because they can be only hinted at in myth and ritual; where he glimpses a destination that he can never know fully until he reaches it.

We are all of us more mystics than we believe or choose to believe - life is complicated enough as it is, after all. We have seen more than we let on, even to ourselves. Through some moment of beauty or pain, some sudden turning of our lives, we catch glimmers at least of what the saints are blinded by; only then, unlike the saints, we tend to go on as though nothing has happened. To go on as though something has happened, even though we are not sure what it was or just where we are supposed to go with it, is to enter the dimension of life that religion is a word for.

Some, of course, go to the typewriter. First the lump in the throat, the stranger's face unfurling like a flower, and then the clatter of the keys, the ting-a-ling of the right-hand margin. One thinks of Pascal sewing into his jacket, where after his death a servant found it, his "since about half past ten in the evening until about half past midnight. Fire. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace," stammering it out like a child because he had to. Fire, fire, and then the scratch of pen on paper. There are always some who have to set it down in black and white."

~ Frederick Buechner, Listening To Your Life 

Welcome To Canada! Just Don't Discuss Anything Controversial: The Aftermath of Motion 312

Kitchener-Centre MP Stephen Woodworth

It's the day after, and all across Canada the in-boxes, voicemails, and mailboxes of Members of Parliament are breathing a sigh of relief. The 294 votes have been cast, and Motion 312 has been soundly defeated.  For my American and International readers, Motion 312 was introduced as a private members bill to our House of Commons by Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth from the riding of Kitchener-Centre, Ontario. The Motion reads as follows:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

      (i)            what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

   (ii)            is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

 (iii)            what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

 (iv)            what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

For several weeks, women and men across this country have seen this motion as an attempt at re-opening the abortion debate and thus an attack on women's rights.  Thus the letters, e-mails and phonecalls, not to mention the massive e-petitions by groups such as LeadNow.

From the outset, our Conservative Prime Minister said that he would not support such a bill, as he has promised not to bring up abortion while he is in power.

While Mr. Woodworth is unapologetically "pro-life," there is not one word in the above motion that pertained to abortion or stripping away women's rights. What this motion was proposing was a discussion.

The Canadian Criminal Code states that:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Furthermore, Woodworth argued that the current definition of a human being was according to a 400 year old English law and should be re-examined.

Again, I hear nothing about abortion or taking away women's rights. I hear a call for a discussion.

If the wording of this motion had been to ban abortion or ban partial-term abortion, or taking away a woman's right to choose, I'd understand the uproar. But it wasn't.

Not surprisingly, though, drama and hyperbole kicked in, and it was easily defeated. What if Mr. Woodworth hadn't have been a Conservative, but a member of the more liberal opposition parties?

As it stands, the Motion was defeated 203-91, with several Conservative ministers including the Immigration Minister and Minister for the Status of Women voting in favour. Also, a handful of Liberal party members voted in favour, while none of the Official Opposition NDP members supported the bill.

The drama continued after the vote, with NDP Women's critic Niki Ashton, took umbrage with Ms. Ambrose, the Ministeer for the Status of Women: "I think we need someone who is actually interested in women's equality. I think it's shameful that the minister in charge of moving forward on women's equality stood up in the House to essentially attack a woman's right to choose." Headshake. Whaaa? Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said it should be noted that Parliament sent a strong signal with such an overwhelming vote opposing the debate. "The question of abortion is essentially a question of a woman making that decision. It's something where we have to respect a woman's right to choose."

I'm movin' on up back to Woodworth's motion, and says nothing about abortion or taking away women's rights.

A friend and former pastor of mine, Harold Albrecht, is currently Conservative MP for the riding of Kitchener-Conestoga. The day before the vote we chatted online about opening up the discussion. Here's what he had to say: "It seems quite strange that we are unwilling to discuss this issue. We discuss freely the environmental impact on salamanders of the proposed new bridge, but somehow discussing the impact of a 400 year old law on the human species is not allowed? This makes no sense to me." He then remarked, "I will vote in such a way that I can look my children and grandchildren in the eye in 20 years and say "I did what was right, regardless of the political fallout."

I have 2 points to make at the end of this article:

1. Why are we so afraid to have a discussion on when a fetus becomes a human being? Instead of trying take away rights, perhaps people are trying to make sure that all those who are human beings have rights.  The current definition of when a human being becomes a human being is unbelievable to me. So it's at the time of birth. Hmm. Is it when the head is out, or the shoulders? Is it when you can tell the sex of the baby, or when the umbilical cord is cut?  I think a discussion would be fascinating. Bring in the scientists, the ethicists, the theologians.  Why do people refer to what they are carrying as "their baby" if they are only carrying a fetus? Why do people light up with joy and have "baby" showers if it is undetermined whether the fetus will grow into a baby? A Christian mentor of mine from the past shocked me this past week when they said "I think there should be a discussion on when a fetus becomes a human, and then I believe abortions should be available, that the woman has the right to sit down with her doctor and make that call." 


2. The terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are worn and tired, and they don't reflect the nuanced details that form our opinions on such matters. Do pro-lifers naturally hate women? Do pro-lifers who are women have an inferiority complex and need to be freed from the clutches of men? Do pro-lifers care as much for people once they are born and all throughout life as they say they do when a child is in the womb?  Is someone who is pro-choice necessarily without religion? Are they baby-killers? Do they have no respect for the sanctity of life?

Last night after having his vote defeated, Stephen Woodworth told The Record: "I think honestly that there is a consensus right across Canada that there ought to be legal recognition of children as humans before birth." Consensus, Stephen? Really?

What we have had here is a whole lot of huffing and puffing, I am glad to live in this land, and democracy was served, albeit after having it's buttocks being kicked by hyperbole. The fact that we won't discuss such matters disturbs me. 

Mark Andrew Alward

Hidden Greatness: What?! No Facebook Notifications?!

"There is much emphasis on notoriety and fame in our society. Our newspapers and television keep giving us the message: What counts is to be known, praised, and admired, whether you are a writer, an actor, a musician, or a politician. Still, real greatness is often hidden, humble, simple, and unobtrusive. It is not easy to trust ourselves and our actions without public affirmation. We must have strong self-confidence combined with deep humility. Some of the greatest works of art and the most important works of peace were created by people who had no need for the limelight. They knew that what they were doing was their call, and they did it with great patience, perseverance, and love.” ~ Henri J.M. Nouwen

Facebook, Twitter, E-Mail, Google+, Reddit, and Instagram - just to name a few. These are a few ways by which our voice can be heard in today's world.  In fact, so many of us are attached to one or many of these forms of social media/communication that we'd be forgiven if we were to ask WWJP (What Would Jesus Post?) or WWBT (What Would Buddha Tweet?) when we power up our computers in the morning.

Let's admit it; most of the things that we post online during the day are pretty useless. We post a status update on the minutiae of our day - what we had for lunch, or if the dog seems to have a cold. I, for one, change my profile picture so many times that it's probably listed in the latest edition of Obsessive Compulsives 'R' Us. I, get particularly annoyed by many of the so-called inspirational quotes with picturesque backgrounds that end up on my news feed.

Clutter. Clutter. Clutter.

As if our "real" lives aren't cluttered up enough with noise, tasks to complete, and people to see, we clutter up our e-lives.

I think a lot of it comes down to plain old narcissism, and I am guilty as charged. (As a sidenote, perhaps the most aggravating of Facebook posts are the ones that say "I have over 100 Friends, but I bet you that less than 15 will "Like" this status update. "Like" it to prove that I mean something special to you." Puuleeeeze.)

I'm not advocating that we all delete our Facebook and Twitter accounts, but perhaps we - perhaps I - can tone it down a notch. And I also want to mention that social media can be a force for good, like when someone is promoting a worthy cause.

But above, the late Catholic priest and writer Henri Nouwen speaks of hidden greatness that is "often hidden, humble, simple, and unobtrusive."  Are you like me and get frustrated when you log on to Facebook or check your email and you have fewer messages than expected or no messages at all? Ahhhh! The sky is falling!  Nouwen says that it isn't easy to come to a place where you don't need public affirmation, and that we have to have a self-confidence combined with a deep humility in order to do so.

One of the things we have lost with the advent of social media and being always-connected is simplicity and humility. Taking a walk to be with our Creator or just to be with ourselves is something our parents or grandparents did, not us. But this is to our peril. Our natural state is not one of serenity and being grounded, but one of anxiety - When am I going to receive another Facebook notification?

I think - I know - that each of us has a hidden greatness. We have great things to accomplish. But the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

And there's a "Shut Down" button on our computers that we might do well to use more often.

Mark Andrew Alward

What The Heck Is Emerging/Emergent Christianity Anyway?

These days you hear a lot about something called "emergent" or "emerging" Christianity, but there seems to be many forms. In this video, Pastor Mark Driscoll gives an explanation as he sees it. Note: If I were still a Christian today, I would be in the category of "emerging liberal."

You've Been A Bad, Bad Boy

5:47pm
Matter of Taste Coffee Bar
Kitchener, Ontario
Music: Bob Dylan - Tempest (2012)

Do you believe that you are originally blessed or originally cursed? I think our answer to this question is quite important. For over 20 years I believed the latter, that since Adam and Eve ate some bad fruit and did some naughty things in the Garden of Eden, that their sin spilled down through the generations to me, and that somehow I needed to be reconnected  with the Divine.  I held this understanding throughout my childhood, always making sure to pray for forgiveness whenever I would "do something bad," but things became intolerable for me when I became a teenager.

That's when the hormones kicked in. The Sears catalogues would come in the mail or by pick-up, and I started to gain an interest in the swimwear and the lingerie sections. Inevitably, soon after I began masturbating, but I was almost always ashamed by it, thinking that I was being ungodly for lusting after these tempting women that I kept looking at. As I got a little older and went to Bible college, the belief that I was a sinner in need of grace only increased; so did my lust. Whenever an unused computer was around and the door would lock, there I was, either watching scantily-clad women in music videos or just plain porn; mostly it was the former.  But the guilt just kept growing and growing, and I couldn't understand why I couldn't obey God and make him happy with me. Instead I was a wretch, a sinner, corrupt, filthy. Filthy, filthy, filthy. It was like my "sin" was only corroborating my dirty view of myself.

Bad, bad, bad boy.

I have been in touch lately with someone who has been talking about "the adversary" and dark, spiritual forces.  They've been using them to explain mental illness, which really grinds my fucking gears because, well, I live with mental illnesses.  But this way of thinking is also a spiritual illness.

What if we taught our children that they are originally loved and blessed, rather than having to climb the rungs of some ladder that has Satan nipping at their feet at every moment?  This idea of original sin MUST go, it MUST be discarded. Does that mean we are now perfect, or that children don't need to be admonished sometimes? No, of course not. But to force some sort of pseudo-spiritual centuries-old god-damned guilt on our children, teens, and adults is nothing less than a kind of abuse.  It's very powerful though, and many religious people hold onto it. Why? One word: Control. If you can scare the living shit out of people by telling them they are bad boys and girls and that they have to make sure they stay faithful to God (usually their version of God) then you've got 'em.

I attend a Unitarian church now, and I remember how taken aback I was the first few Sundays when during children's time, the kids weren't told stories of obedience to a great big God. And I learned that in their classes downstairs they were given guidance but a lot of room to freely explore what they were thinking and feeling. That's more like it.

Trust yourself.

Slaughter the pitch-forked adversary by learning how much you are loved and that there is no more need for fear.

Mark Andrew Alward

We'll Just Fit Well Together

7:50pm

09/16/12

Springsteen's latest album Wrecking Ball is blasting through my earphones and it takes me back briefly to when I was a little kid rocking out to Born In The U.S.A. The feeling passes and all that matters is that this is a kick-ass album.

I used to hear people say that there is one person out there who is perfect for you, and that someday they'll come along. I'm not so sure of that anymore after 34 years. Maybe it's because I haven't been watching as many rom/com's as usual lately. Maybe it's because I think I had a chance with that person and fucked it up. I don't know.

I'm a romantic at heart and it's something that I won't apologize for. The most romantic moment I've ever had came in college when I held my girlfriend on my couch for hours, not minutes, and we just looked into each other's eyes as the hours ticked by.

It's the small things that I miss. The brush of my hand against yours, my hands around your waist, stealing a kiss on the cheek. Having a coffee together and walking through the park and saying hi to the ducks. Cracking open a bottle of red. Your head on my shoulder.

I want to hear how your day went. I want to pull you back into bed when the alarm goes off.

For now I'm not thinking years ahead, as perhaps someone who is 34 should. I want to live in the present moment, I want to live with today. With you. I'll applaud your achievements, you might pretend to laugh at my jokes once in awhile.

I may have met you already; maybe I haven't.

Let's walk right now, take life as slowly as we can, and enjoy those glances, that touch, the stolen kisses.  

We'll just fit well together.

Mark Andrew Alward

Dalai Lama: "Religion Is No Longer Adequate"

On Monday, His Holiness The Dalai Lama took to Facebook and posted the following for his 4 million followers to see. It is a quote from his recent work, Beyond Religion: Ethics For A Whole World.

"All the world's major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether."

The 77-year-old Tibetan spiritual leader continues:

"Any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics."

The Dalai Lama has also spoken of the need to bring together science and spirituality in the face of modern suffering. In his 2005 book The Universe In A Single Atom: The Convergence of Science And Spirituality, he writes:

"The great benefit of science is that it can contribute tremendously to the alleviation of suffering at the physical level, but it is only through the cultivation of the qualities of the human heart and the transformation of our attitudes that we can begin to address and overcome our mental suffering... We need both, since the alleviation of suffering must take place at both the physical and the psychological levels."

I agree with the Dalai Lama. For instance, I have many friends who are agnostics or atheists, but are people of love, tolerance, and compassion. Indeed, I am part of a Unitarian congregation which has a fairly large humanist population, and they are a caring, loving, forgiving people.  Religion does not own ethics. I would not denounce faith, nor would the Dalai Lama; it can be very important for us. But religion must no longer take credit for ethics.