Want My Vote? Camouflage Your Faith.

According to a recent Angus Reid Institute poll as reported in the National Post, voters don't want their politicians to have personal religious beliefs -- at least that's my take from their findings.  But let's look closer.

The poll was conducted one month after the recent Canadian federal election and focused on the leader of the Conservatives, Andrew Scheer, who lost to Liberal Justin Trudeau even though many thought Pierre's son had screwed up so badly that there was no way he could win.  But win he did.

Among those polled who knew Scheer was Catholic, 51% said his religious beliefs had a negative impact on their view of him.  But did all 51% translate that into voting for his opponent?  We don't know. It is true that the two key issues were his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.  It is also true that Trudeau and the Liberals emphasized that more than anything they had to offer.

It's also possible that Scheer had a non-positive (or at the very least a non-exciting) image to begin with. He certainly wasn't prepared to take on those who would argue his faith was the problem.

Interestingly, the poll found that 67% of Canadians knew about the deep religious beliefs of both Scheer the Conservative and NDP (New Democratic Party) leader Jagmeet Singh, a devoted Sikh. But they treated them differently.  While 51% counted it against Scheer, only 24% counted it against Singh.  Why?  Maybe it wasn't the person after all, but rather the specific faith that made a difference.  These days, if it looks, swims, and quacks like a Christian, it must be a Christian -- and it's unacceptable to have a Christian behaving like a Christian in government, especially in the ruling party.  However, if the leader can camouflage his/her Christianity, say like Justin Trudeau does, then only 31% would even know about his Catholic faith (same faith as Scheer's) and only 36% deemed it as a negative impact on their views towards him.

And of course, the liberal, left-leaning, media does not help a candidate like Scheer.  They continuously pelt questions at him about his stand on the two issues mentioned above knowing his responses would likely cause more voters to move away from him.  And this goes on even while 55% of Canadians believe that questions about a person's faith or religion should be "off-limits" during election campaigns (and only 45% say it should not).  But since when does the media today listen to the majority when it doesn't suit their agenda?

The fact Scheer promised he would never allow legislation that would change the status quo of the federal government's position on the issues did not matter.  I mean after all how can you trust a politician when he won't stick by his own ethical and religious beliefs?  [An excellent question by the way.]. And the poll actually bears that out -- 32% believe a politician who makes those kind of promises, but 41% doubt its truth, and 27% say there's no way they'd keep their word.

And we can argue all we want that having faith as a guiding light is much more than having a position on same-sex marriage or abortion and that politicians with faith are much better for society than those without -- it doesn't matter because these days it's all about those two issues and those two issues almost exclusively.

In fact, among Liberal and NDP supporters, over 80% said that a candidate's views on those two issues had a strong impact on their vote.  For Conservatives, it was only 46%.

Angus Reid polls also provide an index on "public faith" for Canadians -- the degree to which those polled believe that having, knowing, and sharing faith and its importance in society.  Currently 36% are for it; 30% are uncertain; and about 35% dead against it.  That's the election mentality field in which anyone tries to win an election.

Nevertheless, the fact remains -- faith worn on your sleeve is not a vote-getter these days.  How then shall the Christian run for office, or should he?

First, I believe we need more Christians in office, not fewer.  But Christians running for office must realize that winning is not the be all purpose of their life.  God can use your run for office to open other doors and touch the lives of individuals and groups in new ways.

Second, as a body of believers, the Church of Christ must realize that while God is fully aware of who wins and who loses in elections and who forms the governments of the world, He does not need the political playing field to conquer sin and set up His Kingdom.

Third, and most importantly, if God has given us strong convictions about the various issues causing division in our society today, we should stick with those convictions, being very careful to demonstrate total love towards those that disagree with us.  We have not done that well as Christians to this point. If we are to make a difference, we need to.

Fourth, our votes should go to people who have faith and are willing to tell their voters that their faith will indeed guide their actions and decisions.  And let's leave the results to God.

-- Ken Godevenos, writing from Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.

p.s. please tell me what you think by leaving a comment below.  And also if you haven't already, please subscribe to the blog on the right so you won't miss a single issue.  And feel free to pass this one long.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Some Praying May Be Counter-Productive And Other Tips on "Thoughts & Prayers"

A recent report from Newswise (Nov. 27/19) reported on some research at the University of Wyoming which found prayers can crowd out donations for disaster victims. The researcher found that people who offer prayers for victims of natural disasters may be less likely to donate to those victims.

The researcher (Linda Thunstrom) believes the results "suggest that the act of praying is a substitute for material help." Her research is now available online here and will appear in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in early 2020.  The study's methodology is most interesting for those who care about research methods.

As I have noticed recently in the media's treatment of prayer -- Christians see prayer on their behalf as a significant contribution to their need whereas "atheists and agnostics were actually 'prayer-averse,' placing a negative monetary value on prayers on their behalf by others."

Furthermore, the study found (in general) that those who indicated they would pray or had prayed, donated smaller amounts of money to relieve the hardship that victims (in this case, victims of a hurricane disaster) faced, than those who did not pray and only thought about the victims.

This topic and research takes on more significance these days when some are objecting to many politicians offering only "thoughts and prayers" to victims of mass shootings or natural disasters, and their families, and doing very little else to help them practically.  Some see this as a cop-out alternative, excusing them from taking meaningful action.   [Not to be confused with politicians who claim they pray daily for their opponent and then proceed to stab them in the back and never co-operate with them in any way.  But we'll save that for another blog, another time.]

Thunstrom herself admits that 'religiosity' is a positive force for volunteering to help victims and that even prayers increase the awareness and empathy of the one doing the praying for the victims and the circumstances. However, the co-relation between prayer and charitable donations may be negative -- more praying, less donating.

So what can we make of all this and how can we, as Christians, respond to the research?

First, I suggest that we never tell a person that we are praying for them unless we are confident they believe in prayer (at least in us praying) and they would welcome our prayers on their behalf. A good rule of thumb is if in doubt, either don't tell them or ask them for permission to do so.  Of course, asking and then having them say "no" or "no thank you" may well leave you in a greater ethical dilemma as to whether or not you do pray for them. For that reason alone, I would treat my praying for others for whom I am not certain would appreciate it, as something I do on my own, secretly, in my own prayer closet, so to speak.

Second, we would do well to consider the research and see if we fit the findings -- collectively, and individually.  And now it's time for true confessions. Or, is it full disclosure? I can only speak for myself, however.  It is a fact that my charitable dollars do not easily go to non-Christian causes whereas my prayers have a much broader spectrum of beneficiaries. I leave the financial assistance to non-Christian causes to non-Christians feeling there are many more of them than there are of us. But I also believe that may not always be right. Each of us has to decide for ourselves.

Third, the problem we have as a society is that too many of us have way more than we really need. Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist. But I do believe that we (those of us reading this blog) could all afford to give more, do more, than we are doing right now. We have been blessed to be a blessing to others.  And we can do much better in that category. Maybe we can even change the results of future similar research.

Fourth, when we offer to only pray instead of giving as well, we may well be hindering God's intended way of meeting the need of the person or persons we are offering to pray for. He may very well want you to meet that need. And that goes for Christians and non-Christians in need. Not giving in these situations, may well be hurting the ones you are praying for.

Fifth, when you actually tell someone you will pray for them and you don't -- well, that hurts you. You have failed to keep your word.  You feel badly.  Don't tell anyone you will pray for them unless you really will.  In fact, when someone writes to me in an email or a text that they would appreciate my praying for something, I have dropped whatever I was doing and prayed for them. [It happened moments ago when a friend asked for prayer for his homeland of Albania which had just suffered a devastating earthquake two days ago.]  Then I write back and tell them I did so.  And will do so again as "God brings them to mind".  When He does, I do my part.

Prayer is not an option. It works. It's needed. But use it responsibly.

-- Ken Godevenos, writing today from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

p.s. please leave your thoughts as a comment below; and better still, join those who get notified each time a new Epistoli blog goes on-line.  Subscribe to the right.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

I welcome the "OK Boomer" label. But think twice before you say I'm "out of touch".

As a boomer (and an early one at that -- meaning I "b-l-oomed" early), I recently discovered that the generations that came after me, especially those wonderful 'Millennials' and 'Generation Z's' are using the label "OK Boomer" very condescendingly to imply that I and those of my generation are simply "out of touch" with things.

Why even Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (age 37) hit back at White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway's (age 52) concerns about the legalization of marijuana with a flippant "OK Boomer" and indicating her to be "out of touch".

Well, first of all, Mr. Gaetz doesn't know his generations.  Ms. Conway is a Generation X'er, not a Boomer.  But hey that's indicative of young, whippersnappers who may think they know it all, or a lot of it.

Secondly, not sure what we are all so "out of touch" with.  Or, as Kurt Anderson said in the Morning Brew recently, put another way, if we're so "out of touch" how is it that if we go back to the times when the average age of boomers was 35 (that was in 1989), we owned 21% of all of America's wealth?  And compare that with the year (2008) when Generation X'ers had an average age of 35, they owned only 8% of America's wealth.  But it gets better. Millennials who soon (2023) will have an average age of 35, only own 3% of America's wealth.   I don't mind being out of touch.

Others have said my generation is out-of-touch, reactionary, and complicit in destroying the planet.  Really?  I remember my generation as the one that had backyard gardens where we grew our own vegetables and fruits. We were the ones that drove regular cars, not Ford F-150's, -250's, and -350's, or their sister trucks from the other manufacturers that leave big carbon footprints.
At best, station-wagons were all we needed, not SUV's.  We didn't eat out as often and washed our dishes each night. We didn't order in as much and weren't killing as many trees to provide us with Chinese food and pizza containers that have to be thrown out.  We didn't fly all over the world whenever we felt like it because we had to see everything there was to see. In fact, some would argue that we did more to keep our planet going than the average millennial does today.

If we are "out of touch" maybe it's because we chose not to grow and be attached to a virtual electronic umbilical cord connecting us to all the latest craziness around the world.  If we are "out of touch" maybe it's because we talked with real people around the dinner table rather than surf the net or watch Netflix while eating.  If we are "out of touch" maybe it is because while we appreciated the films celebrities made, we didn't feel obliged to obey their every commands when it comes to issues beyond their expertise.

If we are "out of touch" with those who disagree with us on many issues, maybe it's because we spent more time with Someone Who really matters -- God. And maybe as a result we didn't need to be so dependent on drugs or psychotherapists. We were not (and are not) at the end of our rope because we have homework from three teachers in the same night, or two assignments due on the boss's desk in two days.  Maybe because we were "out of touch" we did not "burnout" as easily as the generations that came after us do.

Maybe our being "out of touch" meant millions of fewer babies were being murdered by abortion than they are today.

And maybe because we were "out of touch" we weren't freaking out when the party we supported didn't win an election. And we weren't afraid that the world would end in a decade.  And we didn't have to live with our parents when we grew up.  In fact, maybe because we were "out of touch" -- we could grow up.

Hey, Millennials, sure we can be blamed for a lot of things we introduced to the world, but I assure you those things didn't come about because we were "out of touch".  Some of them came about because we were wrong and we'd be the first to admit it.  As Millennials, you have a lot going for you and some of us are willing to work with you.  But you are making a big mistake when you dismiss us being "out of touch".   Now, the "OK Boomer" label, well, bring it on.  It just helps us remember (with pride) what we've contributed to your world while we wait for you to make your first donation to the cause.

-- Ken Godevenos, writing today from South Carolina

p.s. you can leave your comments below and better still, sign up to get all my blogs.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Working Title: To What End?

I am told that people use their blogs to tell stories and share feelings, or perhaps to pass on some information they consider others would be interested in or need to know. I know I need to write and want to write. But I am haunted by the ever-present question of "to what end?"

There have been millions of writers before me and should our world continue to exist as it is, there may well be millions of writers after me.  All the writers eventually die. All the works are eventually forgotten by the majority of people.  The majority alive today have never even heard of most classics, and reading Shakespeare would be "all Greek" to them. So what is the point of writing down your deepest thoughts and feelings? Why risk having your life and inward soul exposed -- to your family, your friends, your colleagues, strangers and worse still -- to yourself?

That is the question I face today and I share it with you.  "To what end should one write in such a way?" What would you offer the inquisitor of such an eerie question? I'd welcome your thoughts.

-- Ken Godevenos
November 25, 2019, writing from South Carolina.

Looking for good information and a fun challenge daily -- join me with a "Morning Brew" newsletter,  perked and delivered fresh each morning.   Just click here:

https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/r/?kid=02abbd52

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Almost Thou Persuadest Me . . .To Be a Universalist, But Not Quite

That All Shall Be Saved:
Heaven, Hell and Universal Salvation

Author: David Bentley Hart

Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2019

Full disclosure: this book was sent to me by the publisher for review. As always, “I call them as I read them” and this review is no exception.  Read on.

There are three ways to review this book on Universalism. One is as an English teacher (I used to be one). The other is as a relational human being (some say I have a long way to go here). And the third is as a Christian (I know I am).

Let me cut to the chase, covering all three types of reviews very quickly with respect to David Bentley Hart’s book. I read the book very carefully.  You should see my margin notes.  

As a literary work and as a position paper, Hart deserves an A+. He goes about his work with passion throwing every argument he can possibly come up with at his adversaries (those who disagree with him on the issue of universalism). As you will see from my comments and quotes below, Hart is a master of the English language. For this I would give the book 5 stars.

Viewing this book from a human perspective, I found it fell extremely short on all counts. I am sure I am not alone in finding the author’s style to be very patronizing (and all the synonyms that fit). The author goes so far as to claim his own version (translation) of Scripture. Wonderful if that’s what we’re studying, but not so apropos if one uses this as one of his tools for arriving at his conclusions. Hart admits to writing a book “that is at odds with a body of received opinion so invincibly well-established that I know I cannot reasonably expect to persuade anyone of anything, except perhaps of my sincerity.” He is correct on the former premise, and wrong on the latter. From his introduction and throughout his book, this reader feels that the author does not give two hoots for anyone who picks up his book and disagrees with him. Early on he writes, “Not that I am accusing anyone of consciously or cynically seeking to manipulate the minds of faithful Christians” but he does exactly that and worse still, he, in my humble opinion, is guilty of the same crime.  He has no trouble at all taking some fundamental Christian tenets and commenting on them with a wave of his pen as “Happily, all of that is degrading nonsense.” Elsewhere he tells us that we need to guard against the “…relative rhetorical gifts of the author” when considering traditional thinking, to which I respond, “You’re one to talk, Doctor.” Do you get the idea? For all of the above, as a reader- or people-friendly work, I would only give the book 1 star.

That leaves us with the content perspective as I view it from the point of view of a western hemisphere modern Evangelical Christian – the group that Hart has little use for when it comes to what he believes about salvation and those that will be granted it. One of Hart’s major arguments throughout seems to be found in the phrase (and I paraphrase here) – “how can one believe in a God who creates a reality in which the eternal suffering of any being is possible, and if He can, how could He be the God of love that Christianity says He is.” May I respectfully suggest that the author’s failure to accept that possibility is not a problem with God, but rather the limitations he places on God based on his own limited human understanding. He writes, “God, of course, ought not to be measured by the moral imagination of even as great a poet as Dante – or, for that matter, by anyone else’s.” Yet he seems to be doing exactly that. His view of God is limited by his own imagination, albeit, supported in his mind and perhaps by those that would agree with him, with some creative arguing.  Hart does, throughout his book, present some good arguments and suppositions. [The average review length will not permit me to make reference to them. I am all but tempted to write a lengthy critique of his book, but I’ll save that for a later time. For me the issue at hand is best addressed, not so much by what I have been taught over the years on one end of the spectrum, and what Hart believes on the other – but rather, on two points – a) God, because He is the ‘Unquestionable I AM’ can do whatever He wants with His creations and b) knowing what He will do should not make any difference to the way that one of His children lives their life.]

Allow me to make some final points. Hart provides the reader with ten pages of Scripture verses he believes support Universalism and he goes to the great trouble of quoting those verses not only in English, but also in the original (koine) Greek. Admittedly, I am not a Greek scholar, but I (as a Greek) can understand it enough to boldly suggest that the interpretations the author makes are often not the only ones that someone can make from the original text. Secondly, Hart renders the book of Revelation an almost useless work as far as assisting us in getting a handle on what God may have in mind for the “end times”. Thirdly, Hart seems to rely more on the writings of both believers (early Christians) and non-believers (poets, etc.) than he does on Scripture itself. I believe most of Hart’s readers (especially Christian readers) would find one or all of these positions untenable. For all of the above and much more (with which I could write my own book), I would give the book 3 stars with respect to his contentions.

In conclusion, and using my limited statistical capabilities, the overall rating I would assign to Hart’s book is 3 stars.  It’s a good read.  He may have intended it to support Universalism, but in many cases his readers will use it (primarily due to his attitude and his own arguments limited by his own human intellect) as a means by which their own more traditional beliefs are upheld.

The book is clearly written for those used to hearing post-graduate university lectures. For any sharp individual, however, who is courageous enough to stand up for what he/she thinks or believes, this book will either make your blood boil or you will find comfort for something you thought or felt but were afraid to state publicly.

-->

n  Ken B. Godevenos, President, Accord Resolutions Services Inc., Toronto, Ontario, November 8, 2019, www.accordconsulting.com

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.