Ideas that some day might grow up to be posts - vol. 1, no. 1

Having spent most of my working life writing for academic and professional journals, I find that restrictions on length or number of words are quite unwelcome. But once in a while, one wants to simply throw out some ideas without taking the time to write the usual multiple pages, as has been my life-long practice.

So in no particular order, here are some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my mind lately that may or may not one day grow up into full-blown postings.

1. The peacemaker (so called)

What is it about Americans and guns? I lived in the U.S. for two years as well as doing an open-line radio program in Washington State for another three. During that time I found that a major difference between our two cultures is that Canadians, by and large, see a very limited place for handguns, or weapons of any sort, whereas Americans seem to be in love with the things. In my time doing the radio program, only twice was I interfered with in my choice of topics. One of these was guns. And this was a Christian radio station! My producer admitted that he had three of his own.

Yet as I read American bloggers following the U.S. presidential race, I find self-proclaimed so-con spokespeople lamenting that there are candidates who are pro-abortion and anti-gun. Pardon me?

Can you imagine if Jesus had been born in the U.S. He would be criticized by the NRA for not packing heat. Peter would have been the hero for wielding that sword in the garden of Gethsemane, and Jesus would have been the bleeding heart liberal who offered free public health care.

2. The Prime Minister (so far)

Getting back to my own shores, there is an Ontario blogger who calls himself Christian Conservative. He identifies himself further as an evangelical Christian active in his local church and devoted to biblical truth. I have no criticism of this, of course. To some extent I could say the same thing about myself. But this otherwise unnamed gentleman also displays an ardent support for Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister. Has he questioned our first minister lately about his pathetic performance on the life file?

First of all, I would like to remind my Christian brother not to be too confident that the political route will get you far on issues related to the personhood and security of the unborn baby. It is not for nothing that the Bible warns us not to put our trust in princes (Cardinal Wolsey's dying words, quoting Psalm 146:3).

Beyond this, Mr. Harper has dismissed discussion of life matters with the comment that his position is too complicated to talk about. A couple of representative quotes:

a. ctv.ca, June 1, 2004

Harper admitted that although his personal view of the issue lies somewhere "in between the two extremes," he has "no intention of discussing the topic during an election." "We know different people in our party have different views on abortion and they're entitled to them. But the truth of the matter is this is an issue that could not be done at the federal level anyway. It's a matter of provincial jurisdiction," he said.

Harper said that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services. How health-care funding is spent, he said, should be left to the provinces.

b. ctv.ca, January 20, 2006

Harper also believes moral issues should be a matter of individual conscience, not party policy, he (i.e., William Johnson, author of Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada) said. By not making abortion and same-sex marriage party issues, Johnson noted Harper has in effect marginalized the social conservatives. "Because the vote (on same-sex marriage) will be a free vote, and he will vote one way, yes, but the Bloc, and most of the Liberals and NDP almost to a person would oppose anything that limited abortion or same-sex marriage, it's not going to go anywhere."

It should come as no surprise, then, that Conservative backbencher Ken Epp's very important bill regarding unborn victims of crime is going the private members route. Why isn't it a government bill? Alas, it will die aborning.

3. The Pope (so tactless)

A number of Canadian bloggers with strong pro-life convictions have been urging Christians to encourage the Pope's presence at the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City next June. They are suggesting that this would be of great help in taking the pro-life cause forward. See, for instance, Vote Life, Canada Nov. 9/07; Stand Your Ground Nov. 9/07; The Bear Blog Nov. 9/07; and Big Blue Wave Nov. 1 and Nov. 7/07.

Now I profess great admiration for the present Pope's predecessor, John Paul II. I am beyond grateful, as well, for the leadership given by Catholics to the pro-life cause. In addition, I find at the personal level that Protestant and Catholic Christians can work arm in arm without any difficulties.

But Holy Smokes (if you'll pardon the expression in this context), this Benedict fellow is a public relations disaster.


Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images

Quoting from The Guardian, July 11, 2007:

Protestant churches yesterday reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion.

The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused "no little distress".

But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

The Pope's old department, which issued the document, said its aim was to correct "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965.

I mean no disrespect to the person or the office, but perhaps for the sake of ongoing cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in pro-life organizations, it might be better if the gentleman were to stay in Rome.