IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, FRIDAY WAS ST. ANDREW'S DAY

Saint Andrew's cathedral and the relics within were destroyed during the reformation. 

It isn't religiously followed in Canada but today, November 30, was St. Andrew's Day.

St. Andrew

While Hogmanay and Burns Night are big celebrations on Scotland’s calendar, Saint Andrew’s Day has always been a rather low-key affair.

St Andrew officially became Scotland’s patron saint in 1320, when the Declaration of Arbroath affirmed Scotland’s status as an independent nation. But he’s not just Scotland’s patron saint. Saint Andrew, who was born in Israel between 5 and 10 AD, holds the same honour in Amalfi, Barbados, Greece, Poland, Russia, Romania and Ukraine.

He was a fisherman who converted to Christianity and became one of Jesus Christ’s original disciples, so perhaps it's no surprise he's also the patron saint of fishermen and fishmongers. Why he's the patron saint of singers and pregnant woman and is believed to offer protection against sore throats and gout is not so clear.

Saint Andrew never actually visited Scotland during his lifetime but his kneecap, arm and finger bone did arrive in Scotland, among other relics, after his death. Fourth century monk Saint Rule was instructed to take them and sail west until he became shipwrecked and to establish a church wherever he landed.

St. Rule ended up in the small coastal village of Kilrymont, which we now know as St Andrews. St Andrews Cathedral was built to house the relics in 1318, but both were destroyed during the Scottish Reformation.

St Andrews Day: 10 myths and traditions: To help restore the sanctity of St Andrews, the Archbishop of Amalfi donated a piece of the saint’s shoulder blade, ensuring that a part of him would remain in Scotland. His brother was the first Pope.

Andrew’s brother, Simon Peter, worked with him as a fisherman in Galilee until they both became disciples of Jesus as two of the Twelve Apostles. Some accounts have Andrew bringing Peter to Jesus, while others say that Peter witnessed Jesus perform a miracle while he was fishing, which convinced him of his divinity. He is recognized as the first bishop of Rome, with each subsequent Pope named as the successor of Saint Peter.

Whether or not Peter ever actually went to Rome is also a matter of some debate.

Like many of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew was ultimately executed for his beliefs, becoming a martyr for his refusal to denounce Christ.

However, when it came time for him to be crucified, he requested his cross be turned diagonally, forming an “X” rather than a “T”. He did not feel worthy of the same death as Jesus Christ, and wished for his cross to reflect this.

He was crucified in Greece on a slanted cross as per his request on 30 November 60AD, from which is taken both the date of his special day, and the cross on the Scottish flag. The Cross of St. Andrew was later combined with the Cross of St. Patrick (Ireland) and the Cross of St. George (England) to form the flag of Great Britain.

It was not until the 18th century that St Andrew’s Day became an annually celebrated event, and the practice actually began south of the Canadian border in the United States.

In Charleston, North Carolina, a group of well-off Scottish immigrants formed the St Andrew’s Society of Charleston in 1729 in an attempt to reconnect with their Scottish heritage, while also raising money for charity. Their November 30 parties quickly became popular, and other branches began springing up all over the USA, eventually arriving back on Scottish shores.

TIS THE "WAITING" SEASON OF ADVENT

"The vision will be fulfilled in its own time. If it seems slow in coming, wait for it, for it will surely come."

I dare say that the upcoming Season of Advent goes unobserved by the majority in today's society, yet it is as significant and as old as the Christmas day that we celebrate on the 25th of December. The first Sunday of Advent this year falls on December 1st.

The general topic of Advent in our churches today is the coming of Jesus, both in the manger in Bethlehem and in the clouds of glory. Roughly speaking, the Western Church celebrating Advent, consists of Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans.

Advent candles symbolize the light of God coming into the world through the birth of Jesus. The candles are lit in churches every Sunday during the Advent period so that the last week before Christmas all four candles are lit. The remaining central candle, representing Christ, is then lit on Christmas day.

Advent originated as a period during which Christian converts prepared themselves for baptism through instruction, prayer, fasting and, much like Lent. The length of Advent varied from three days to six weeks, or approximately the 40 days that Jesus Christ spent in the wilderness preparing for His ministry.

In the west during the Middle Ages, Advent became a time to prepare for the Second Coming, because in those days many people were convinced that all signs pointed to the imminent return of Christ. In time, Advent spread throughout the western world and became fixed at its present length. Over the last 50 years, Advent has come to anticipate the Nativity as well. For many people today however, especially those in the commercial world, Advent is simply a ramp-up to Christmas.

I think is is fair to say that almost everyone in our society experiences the weeks leading up to Christmas as a time of waiting. Waiting for a parking space. Waiting for a bargain. Waiting for a visiting relative. Waiting for a treasured Christmas greeting. Waiting for a quiet evening. Waiting for the holidays. Waiting for social gatherings. It is little wonder that waiting for the birth of Jesus has lost its impact. It has been lost in the hustle and bustle of the shuffle. After the turkey has been cleared away and gifts exchanged on Christmas day, most experience a letdown feeling like "after all that preparation and it is over in a flash!"

A minister shares a recent experience when she gathered with the young folk of her congregation for the children's time a the front of the church. She asked the intent little ones: "Who here likes to wait?" One innovative and confident young fellow put up his hand, and, when acknowledged, replied: "I like to wait when I am facing something I don't like."

How profound. Out of the mouths of youngsters often come the most insightful truths we will ever learn.

If you are not eager to experience the "waiting season' of Advent, maybe there is something in your life that you simply do not want to face. Is it the end of a school semester and the uncertainty about what comes next? Is it the struggles around health, or the interminable wait for results from recent medical tests? Do you fear a performance evaluation at work, or a retirement that looms on the horizon? Do you fear getting a job at all? Do you fear the future with a partner who has been abusive and mean, or the future of your child who seems too timid and shy to make it in the world?

Often, how we act in the face of our fears determines how we cope with the challenges of life. It is no wonder that the angel's message whispered in Mary's ear was a simple one: "Don't be afraid." Even our joys are made more real when we know what it is like to face and conquer adversity without fear and loathing.

Advent, the waiting and hoping time leading up to Christmas, is a time when various stories of the birth of Jesus get retold and relived. Jesus' birth was hardly an easy one. The experience of the main characters within that story, whichever biblical verses are deemed closest to the reality of the times, understandably was filled with anxiety and fear. Through it all, however, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the other main characters managed to find their way through it. They often waited -- waited for a clear message that would remove their doubts and fears.

As a culture, we seek instant answers. We might be better off waiting every now and then: looking for new insights, prepared to listen to wise counsel from mentors and elders, eager to accept the fact that there may be, indeed, a new and better way to proceed.

Can we wait for those peace-filled, quiet moments where truth will be revealed, and a still, small voice will speak to us in profound ways? If we can, then we have figured out at least part of the message of Advent. At the very least, the journey to Christmas should be more hopeful and less stressful when we can find moments for renewal and rest within this time of year.

DISCIPLINE TODAY VS. 1940s: IT'S ALL RELEVANT, BUT DIFFERENT

I was lazing over a late breakfast this morning/afternoon (why get up early in the a.m. when you don't have too?...that's my philosophy) when, for absolutely no apparent reason, I began to think about discipline administered by parents today as opposed to when I was growing up in the 1940s.

End result? Very little similarity.

Disciplining children in the 1940s is now often regarded as strict, harsh and oppressive. In fact, children generally were meant to be "seen but not heard." Benjamin Spock’s "Baby and Child Care," which was first published in 1946, greatly influenced how children should be raised. His was one of the first works to promote a scientific view of child-rearing, and parents increasingly turned to advanced theories on parenthood to know how to discipline their children instead of turning to their friends or relatives for parenting advice.

In the '40s, teachers and parents thought that punishing children reduced bad behavior. However, research that came later seemed to prove that this was not the case. Nevertheless, there does seem to be agreement among eyewitness accounts of what it was like to be a child in the '40s that discipline produced a greater fear of authority than what exists today. There was a greater consensus that good manners were more important in society back then and this impacted how people disciplined their children.

The general thinking was "spare the rod and spoil the child." The studies that came out of institutionalized environments for children at that time also suggested that mothers should be with their children 24 hours a day and that anything else could prove damaging for the child’s development. So, the phrase "when your father gets home" was used by housewives frequently across the country when they tried to discipline their child.

Grace Wright, however, never found it necessary to issue that threat to her only child. She handed out her style of discipline on the spot by utilizing whatever weapon was nearest at hand -- a yard stick, a broom, a fly swatter, a wooden spoon; and sometimes (for dramatic effect) taking the time to retrieve my dad's razor strap from the bathroom. I knew what was coming and the anguished anticipation of waiting for that first stinging whack of the strap on any exposed area of my body was the worst part of enduring the punishment. My mind was generally a blank after that.

Funny thing, I do not remember my mother ever threatening to discipline me. She either did, or she didn't. And I do not remember her actually using her bare hand. One thing for sure, I do not recall ever repeating a particular act of bad behaviour...I wasn't that dumb!

My father Ken was more of a softee and I seemed to respect that in him. There was one exception, however, and I have never forgotten it. For the life of me, I do not remember what I had done wrong, but whatever it was it occurred when I was in the bath tub. My dad became so frustrated with my antics that he took the bath brush and applied it amply to my bare bottom, not once but at least a half dozen times. 

I would have taken at least three of my mother's razor strappings to that one scrub brush episode with my dad. My mother told me after Ken's death not many years later, that he came downstairs with tears in his eyes after that one spanking and exclaimed to her: "There, I've done it...And the boy will  probably hate me for the rest of his life."

I was a lot like my dad with my two daughters. Their mother Anne was the main disciplinarian and she did a wonderful job. Generally, she laid down the law and the girls respected her enough to accept the way it was to be in the Wright household.  In the end, I honestly believe that the girls loved their mother and father equally, perhaps in different ways and for different reasons.

Today, many look back at the '40s and '50s and see the corporal punishments that adults inflicted on children as unnecessary and unfair. However, elders who look back at what life was like when they were growing up see a lack of morals in today’s society that affects how children are reared --negative influences on children that did not exist in the past.

Nevertheless, kids of any age act up and become unruly, especially when not getting their way. One way or another they have to learn what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.  In a perfect world they are punished for bad behaviour and acknowledged (rewarded or praised) when they are "good".

It logically follows that we can choose to pick out the "good" parts about what it was like to be a child in the 1940s and avoid the "bad" parts and integrate them into what it means to be a child today. A healthy dose of discipline and structure and a general respect toward society are all important lessons we can take from the discipline of yesteryear.

I truly believe that, done properly, it is a tough job being a parent in today's society, just as it was in the past...And it is equally as tough being a kid, but for possible different reasons.

In retrospect, I've been there and experienced all of that. And I'm kind of glad that it's all history now.

If I had it to live over again however, I would. And I wouldn't wish for anything different.

It all worked for me and I'm still here to talk about it, little the worse for wear.

OLD HUMPHREY USED THOUGHTS OF A TOOTHACHE TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS

From Wikipedia: An alter ego (Latin for "other I") means alternative self, which is believed to be distinct from a person's normal or true original personality. Finding one's alter ego will require finding one's other self, one with different personality. A distinct meaning of alter ego is found in literary analysis used when referring to fictional literature and other narrative forms, describing a key character in a story who is perceived to be intentionally representative of the work's author (or creator), by virtue of oblique similarities, in terms of psychology, behavior, speech, or thoughts, often used to convey the author's own thoughts. The term is also sometimes, but less frequently, used to designate a hypothetical "twin" or "best friend" to a character in a story. Similarly, the term alter ego may be applied to the role or persona taken on by an actor or by other types of performers.

It's been a while since I communicated with my alter ego "Old Humphrey".

I've been having some thoughts about health issues lately and they have weighed heavily one me. Good Old Humphrey to the rescue once again. Speaking with his 18th and 19th century English turn of phrase, I never for the life of me thought that he would use his recall of "a tooth-ache" from his childhood in the late 1700s to elaborate on "thoughts" for my benefit today.

"Good and bad thoughts are the seeds of good and bad words and deeds: they multiply, also our joys and our sorrows," Humphrey began. "Every day has its shine and its shade; and the same remark may be made of all our griefs. Our pleasures are not exempt from inconvenience, nor are our pains unaccompanied with advantage. This ought to be borne in mind more constantly than it is." Up to that point I was on the same wave length as Humphrey.

"Old Humphrey"

But then he really grabbed my attention with a reminiscent about-turn that is so typical of the old 19th century scribe who has come to symbolize my other self.

"No! No! It is not all shadow when we have this tooth-ache.(?) Think of the luxurious feeling when the warm handkerchief, so wistfully regarded, as it is hung airing at the fire, comes at last, to be laid across your cheek and tied in a becoming bow under your ear. Think of the liberty you enjoy, the cessation from all employment, the exemption from all complaints but your own, and the kind attention you receive.

"No one requires from you the smallest service: while one stirs the fire to make the room warm,  another runs to fetch a pillow; a third toasts the bread for your gruel; and a fourth asks if anything can be done to make you better? 

"Say what you will of the tooth-ache, but these concomitants, these gentle alleviations, are dear to us all (well at least those of us old enough to have lived through those good old days). We soon find the difference in our position when we get well again; and we know this, and are not always in haste to proclaim our convalescence.

"No sooner is it known that our malady has subsided, than the handkerchief is withdrawn, and we must set to work again. No one assists us; no one speaks gently to us; and hardly anyone takes notice of us. It is true that our tooth-ache is gone; but it is equally true that with it have disappeared a hundred sources of comforts and complacency." 

As I attempted to wrap my mind around what he had just told me, Old Humph wrapped it all up in a neat package for me.

"Let us apply this to our afflictions generally, looking less at our bodily ailments, and more at the spiritual advantages that attend them.

"God's mercy can make even his judgments a blessing; and by wounding the body, He can heal the soul. 'Our light affliction, which is but for a moment,' may lay a weight of gloom on our minds; but yet it may, by the blessing of our heavenly Father, 'work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 2 Cor.5:17'."

"Thanks for that, old friend. Never thought of it that way, but I get it. You never fail to help me," I hastened to interject. "I think that I'll be alright now!"

"Just one more question though..."

A sudden sense of aloneness permeated the air.

Old Humphrey was gone...Maybe next time.

George Mogridge "Old Humphrey" (17 February 1787 – 2 November 1854), born in Ashted, Birmingham, England, was a prolific 19th century writer, poet and author of children's books and religious tracts. He is chiefly known by his pseudonym of 'Old Humphrey', under which name he published 46 works, but also used the pen-names 'Jeremy Jaunt', 'Ephraim Holding', 'Peter Parley' and 'Old Father Thames'. He wrote approximately 200 published works, many of which are still in publication today, and at the time of his death it was estimated that over 15 million copies of his writings were in circulation. I was first introduced to my now alter ego when I was about 10 years of age. He came to me through one of his books "Thoughts for the Thoughtful", handed down to me from my grandmother Harriet (Pyke) Perry. The book was a gift to her when she was also 10 years of age in 1870. My affinity to Old Humphrey has lasted a lifetime.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS: CRUCIAL TO CHRISTIAN FAITH

"The virgin birth of Jesus, his substitutionary death, his bodily resurrection and his second coming are a package of deity. You cannot isolate any one of those and accept only one and leave the rest or vice versa accept them all but one." ~~ Words of a religous study professor

Claiming to be Christiam but with reservations about the authenticity of the virgin birth of Jesus the Christ, is a little like being half pregnant. Either you are or you're not -- either you do or you don't. You can't be half-Christian!

The virgin birth—like Jesus' resurrection from the dead—ranks as one of the Bible's more amazing miracles. Many people reject the idea outright, while others shrug it off as nonessential to their understanding of the Savior. But a person can't believe the Word of God while rejecting its claim that the Lord was born to a virgin.

In my last Wrights Lane post I alluded to an old friend newspaper columnist who upheld Christian beliefs with the exception of the virgin birth. More recently, TV evangelist Alan Stanley said in a shocking and unsurprising turn that the virgin birth of Jesus isn’t a big deal. 

Two direct quotes from Stanley: 1) “If somebody can predict their own death and their own resurrection, I’m not all that concerned about how they got into the world.” 2) “Christianity doesn’t hinge on the truth or the stories around the birth of Jesus.” It is interesting to note that Stanley has since modified his contention, yet I sense his views are shared by many who still call themselves Christian.

It would seem that Stanley, an extremely effective orator, is embracing the theological Liberalism movement.

Scripture is emphatic about the nature of Jesus' unusual conception. It is mentioned in both the Old Testament and the Gospels. In Genesis 3:15, God warned the serpent that enmity would exist between Eve's seed and his. The choice of words is meant to catch the reader's attention since a woman does not have "seed." Later, through Isaiah, God speaks a clear prophecy: "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son" (Isaiah 7:14).

When Matthew recorded Jesus' genealogy, he crafted a sentence that paid tribute to Mary—not Joseph—as Jesus' biological parent (Matthew 1:16). Then, Luke's gospel relates Mary's encounter with the angel Gabriel, who explained that the Holy Spirit would place God's Son in her womb (Matthew 1:35).

Simply stated, rejecting the virgin birth is the equivalent of calling God a liar. The Bible is His revealed Word (2 Timothy 3:15). Suggesting one portion is false places the whole document under suspicion. So, yes, belief in the virgin birth is essential to the Christian faith.

Understanding the Virgin Birth

Whatever the Word of God proclaims -- and the virgin birth is emphatically acknowledged throughout Scripture -- Christians are to believe it. We are not free to pick and choose which portions of the Bible we will believe or interpret for our own benefit.

We do not have to fully understand the virgin birth in order to be saved i.e. teenagers. Certainly, there is a difference between being ignorant or uneducated and deliberately rejecting Scripture's testimony about who Jesus was. When a person dismisses the Jesus presented to us in the Word of God, they cannot be saved in the true Bibical sense of the word.

People who deny the truth of the virgin birth also reject other foundational truths in the Bible. Some find it more comfortable to select the parts of Scripture that suit their lifestyle or opinions rather than to apply the entire Word of God to their life. When we limit which passages we will consider true, our susceptibility to Satan's lies grows. We drift further and further from the narrow path of obedience to God.

To believe in the Jesus of the Bible is to accept Him as the virgin-born Son of God -- the sinless Christ who gave His life at Calvary in order to take our sin upon Himself. Our freedom is greater when we accept God's truth instead of fighting for our own opinions.

Jesus Christ did not have His beginning in Bethlehem. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus). And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus was the One who spoke the world into existence. And then God translated deity into humanity. That little baby in a manger is the great God who created the universe. The little baby of Luke 2 is the great God of Genesis 1. God became flesh.

You may say, "I don't understand that." Well, I'd be surprise if you said you did understand it. None of us understand it. You see, the miracle of the ages is the virgin conception of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But you don't have to understand it to believe it. If you have difficulty believing in the virgin birth, you really have difficulty believing in God. Why would you have difficulty believing that a child could come into this world without an earthly father when God made the first woman and the first man out of nothing?

If you doubt the virgin birth, you really have difficulty with the character of the Word of God that plainly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin.

You see, if there was no virgin birth, there would be no sinless Christ. No sinless Christ ... no atonement. No atonement ... no forgiveness. No forgiveness ... no hope of heaven. No hope of heaven ... we would all die and go to hell. If you take away the virgin birth, the whole house of Christianity collapses like a house of cards.

There were no other examples of virgin births and no reason for the early Christians to make up the story. Some might think that this was a mythological addition to the Christian faith or something that was embellished over time, but when we look at other somewhat similar things in mythology, most all of them seem to assume some sort of a physical union of a god perhaps with a woman. This is not what we find in Christianity. The accounts are very simple, very understated, and very simply stated that this happened through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of all the objections that can be raised to the virgin birth, we should point to the truthfulness of scriptures in showing us that this was surprising to those in the first century too. It would certainly have been a hard thing for both Mary and Joseph to accept, but they trusted what God said by faith because it was an amazing thing for Him to speak into this world and not just to speak but to send his own son. In fact, it was the most remarkable thing that had happened in human history to that point.

That's the same message of trust that confronts us today and the same response is in a call of faith to believe that God sent his Son in a supernatural way to redeem us from our sins.

The Bible is full of miracles. We simply cannot believe the Gospel and edit, or dilute, the miraculous. 

"To remove the miraculous from Christmas is to remove this central story of Christianity," said Gary Burge, a professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. "It would dismantle the very center of Christian thought and take away the keystone of the arch of Christian theology."

For Burge, an evangelical and author of Theology Questions Everyone Asks, the virgin birth is essential. His thinking goes like this: If Jesus was not virgin-born, then he was not the son of God; if he was not the son of God, then he was just another crucified man and not the sacrifice that would redeem the sins of the world.

THE CHRISTMAS THAT WAS SHOULD STILL BE THE CHRISTMAS THAT IS

Only 52 shopping days before Christmas...including Sundays now, of course.

The late Pat Soloman, a newspaper columnist friend, wrote that it seemed to him that the word "Christmas" had become synonymous with shopping and our most sacred Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus had been reduced to "Tis the season to be jolly."

I've never forgotten his line: "Too many of us think that Christmas Spirit is a product sold by the LCBO."

"In our rush to please everyone, we are losing our heritage," he contended. "I know that Canada is not a 100 per cent Christian nation, but on other festive occasions like the Feast of Eid or Ramaddam or Channakuh or Roshashanna, no one tries to water down the tradition. I am sure that no religion in the world objects to the simple message of Christmas -- 'Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards men'."

And I completely agreed with Pat on that. (We often exchanged notes on what each other had written.)

Almost a decade older than me, Pat made no secret that he doubted the Virgin Birth, but did believe a very special prophet was born in Bethlehem at that time and He had a special message for us all. "That message has been confused by theologians over the ages," he said. "The Golden Rule has been turned into 'he who has the gold makes the rules' and 'do unto others before they do it to you'." He simply felt that cynicism should not stop decent people from being decent. "The detraction from the message given so long ago points to a major malaise in our material national thinking."

We also agreed that society was becoming molecular in as much as our current philosophy was one of listening to single purpose viewpoints. Fashion a decade or so ago, as is the case even more so now, dictates that if one molecule in a mass objects to the behavior of any other molecule (or the mass itself), the the objecting molecule is right. That means the mass as a whole is wrong.

I am especially offended, too, by the fringe few who take up causes simply because of some sick self-serving need to be heard. They delight in upsetting tradition and the beliefs of others. In taking away, they contribute nothing in return.

This new law of behavior allows single purpose groups to prevail over established customs without regard for the good of the whole. Kind of like the tail wagging the dog. This establishes the dangerous tyranny of the minority and imprisons the thinking and voice of the majority. How many cases of this happening today can you think of?

Our so-called leaders, in their haste to displease no one, end up pleasing only a few. We have no leader with a genuine opinion; we only have elected mutes who are paranoid about having their say for fear of a tirade of objections from a vocal minority. They exclusively spew scripted party lines. Political oneupmanship is the dominate modus operandi.

For the majority of the country that was founded on Christian faith, we should be celebrating Christmas as the religious festival that it is and not the commercial binge that is taking over this most sacred time of year. Pat Salmon truly had a single purpose cause and it was called "Canada". He wrote always in favor of his adopted country. He demonstrated his love and did not care who knew it. He believed that developed potential in this country is enormous if only the current populace would view the mass and not the molecule.

NOTE FROM DICK: While I allowed Pat's doubt about the Virgin Birth, in my next Wrights Lane post I will attempt to address the subject from an essentially Christian viewpoint. 

THE LOST ART OF LISTENING TO HEAR

I get the sad impression that I am a poor communicator because I seem to have trouble in getting people to listen to me. It may have something to do with my mannerisms, style of delivery, tone of voice or more precisely, what I actually have to say. It is indeed a perplexing admission perhaps fueled by insecurity with a dash of sensitivity thrown in for good measure.

Could be too, that I simply do not have a demanding-enough presence to command desired attention...I'm grasping at straws here.

In my defense, however, it can be stated, with practically no qualification, that people in general do not know how to listen. They have ears that hear very well, but seldom have they acquired the necessary aural skills which would allow those ears to be used effectively for what is called listening.

Anyway, that's my excuse -- and I'm sticking to it! Allow me to elaborate.

It is curious that silent and listen are spelled with the same six letters. There is merit in restraining comment until you have heard what the other person has to say. As far as I am concerned, listening to reply and interrupting when someone is in the middle of expressing themselves are always a sign of disrespect and disinterest in hearing out the other person.  

Behind this widespread inability to listen lies, in my opinion, a major oversight in our system of classroom instruction. We have focused attention on reading, considering it the primary medium by which we learn, and we have practically forgotten the art of listening. About six years are devoted to formal reading instruction in our school systems. Little emphasis is placed on speaking, and almost no attention has been given to the skill of listening, strange as this may be in view of the fact that so much lecturing is done in college. Listening training—if it could be called training—has often consisted merely of a series of admonitions extending from the first grade through college: “Pay attention!” “Now get this!” “Open your ears!” “Listen!”

Certainly teachers feel the need for good listening, in fact they insist on it with their students. Why then have so many years passed without educators developing formal methods of teaching students to listen? Perhaps we have been faced with several false assumptions which have blocked the teaching of listening. For example:

(1) We have assumed that listening ability depends largely on intelligence, that “bright” people listen well, and “dull” ones poorly. There is no denying that low intelligence has something to do with inability to listen, but we have greatly exaggerated its importance. A poor listener is not necessarily an unintelligent person. To be good listeners we must apply certain skills that are acquired through either experience or training. If a person has not acquired these listening skills, his ability to understand and retain what he hears will be low. This can happen to people with both high and low levels of intelligence.

(2) We have assumed that learning to read will automatically teach one to listen. While some of the skills attained through reading apply to listening, the assumption is far from completely valid. Listening is a different activity from reading and requires different skills. Research has shown that reading and listening skills do not improve at the same rate when only reading is taught.

This means that in our schools, where little attention is paid to the aural element of communication, reading ability is continually upgraded while listening ability, left to falter along on its own, actually degenerates. As a fair reader and a bad listener, the typical student is graduated into a society where the chances are high that he will have to listen about three times as much as he reads.

In general, people feel that concentration while listening is a greater problem than concentration during any other form of personal communication. Actually, listening concentration is more difficult. When we listen, concentration must be achieved despite a factor that is peculiar to aural communication, one of which few people are aware.

Basically, the problem is caused by the fact that we think much faster than we talk. (I should use the word generally here because in my case I speak as slowly as my mind thinks -- but that's my problem) The average rate of speech for most people is around 125 words per minute. This rate is slow going for the human brain, which is made up of more than 13 billion cells and operates in such a complicated but efficient manner that it makes the great, modern digital computers seem slow-witted. 

People who study the brain are not in complete agreement on how it functions when we think, but most psychologists believe that the basic medium of thought is language. Certainly words play a large part in our thinking processes, and the words race through our brains at speeds much higher than 125 words per minute. This means that, when we listen, we ask our brain to receive words at an extremely slow pace compared with its capabilities.

It might seem logical to slow down our thinking when we listen so as to coincide with the 125-word-per-minute speech rate, but slowing down thought processes seems to be a very difficult thing to do. When we listen, therefore, we continue thinking at high speed while the spoken words arrive at low speed. In the act of listening, the differential between thinking and speaking rates means that our brain works with hundreds of words in addition to those that we hear, assembling thoughts other than those spoken to us. To phrase it another way, we can listen and still have some spare time for thinking.

The use, or misuse, of this spare thinking time could well hold the answer to how effectively a person can concentrate on the spoken word.

The speed at which we think compared to that at which people talk allows plenty of time to accomplish these four mental tasks when we listen; however, they do require practice before they can become part of the mental agility that makes for good listening. Recent business training courses have devised aural exercises designed to give people this practice and thereby build up good habits of aural concentration.

Another factor that affects listening ability concerns the reconstruction of orally communicated thoughts once they have been received by the listener. 

Newspapers reported not too long ago that a church was torn down in Europe and shipped stone by stone to America, where it was reassembled in its original form. The moving of the church is analogous to what happens when a person speaks and is understood by a listener. The talker has a thought. To transmit his thought, he takes it apart by putting it into words. The words, sent through the air to the listener, must then be mentally reassembled into the original thought if they are to be thoroughly understood. But most people do not know what to listen for, and so cannot reconstruct the thought.

For some reason many people take great pride in being able to say that above all they try to “get the facts” when they listen. It seems logical enough to do so. If a person gets all the facts, they should certainly understand what is said to them. Therefore, many people try to memorize every single fact that is spoken but do so at the risk of developing bad listening habit.

When people talk, they want listeners to understand their ideas. The facts are useful chiefly for constructing the ideas. Grasping ideas is the skill on which the good listener concentrates. They remember facts only long enough to understand the ideas that are built from them. But then, almost miraculously, grasping an idea will help the listener to remember the supporting facts more effectively than does the person who goes after facts alone. 

Surely this listening skill is one which can be taught in our school systems, one in which people can build experience leading toward improved aural communication.

In different degrees and in many different ways, listening ability is affected by our emotions. Figuratively we reach up and mentally turn off what we do not want to hear. Or, on the other hand, when someone says what we especially want to hear, we open our ears wide, accepting everything—truths, half-truths, or fiction. We might say, then, that our emotions act as aural filters. At times they in effect cause deafness, and at other times they make listening altogether too easy.

If we hear something that opposes our most deeply rooted prejudices, notions, convictions, mores, or complexes, our brains may become over-stimulated, and not in a direction that leads to good listening. We mentally plan a rebuttal to what we hear, formulate a question designed to embarrass the talker, or perhaps simply turn to thoughts that support our own feelings on the subject at hand.

When emotions make listening too easy, it usually results from hearing something which supports the deeply rooted inner feelings that we hold. When we hear such support, our mental barriers are dropped and everything is welcomed. We ask few questions about what we hear; our critical faculties are put out of commission by our emotions. Thinking drops to a minimum because we are hearing thoughts that we have harbored for years in support of our inner feelings. It is good to hear someone else think those thoughts, so we lazily enjoy the whole experience.

What can we do about these emotional filters? The solution is not easy in practice, although it can be summed up in this simple admonition: hear the person out. Following are two pointers that often help in becoming a good listener

(1) Withhold evaluation—This is one of the most important principles of learning, especially learning through the ear. It requires self-control, sometimes more than many of us can muster, but with persistent practice it can be turned into a valuable habit. While listening, the main object is to comprehend each point made by the talker. Judgments and decisions should be reserved until after the talker has finished. At that time, and only then, review main ideas and assess them.

(2) Hunt for negative evidence—When we listen, it is human to go on a militant search for evidence which proves us right in what we believe. Seldom do we make a search for evidence to prove ourselves wrong. The latter type of effort is not easy, for behind its application must lie a generous spirit and real breadth of outlook. However, an important part of listening comprehension is found in the search for negative evidence in what we hear. If we make up our minds to seek out the ideas that might prove us wrong, as well as those that might prove us right, we are less in danger of missing what people have to say.

I do not hesitate to consider myself a good listener...sometimes out of courtesy, I must admit. At the risk of being judged a poor conversationalist, I am sensitive to foisting my thoughts on others, preferring instead to fully ingest what I am hearing said to me.

In practise, I save my serious thoughts, ideals -- even the odd opinion -- for Wrights Lane and the church pulpit. Still, I have reason to believe very few really listen -- to me.

Maybe this is a personal shortcoming...I also listen to what I think I see, by any other name -- inhabitions.

THE SIN OF DELIVERING A LONG SERMON: GUILTY AS CHARGED!

[Verse 1]
They've read the scripture, they've passed the plate
And we're both praying he don't preach late
But he's getting "Amens," and that's just our luck
Yeah, it's eighty-five degrees outside and he's just getting warmed up

[Chorus]
Oh you and me, we could be soaking up that sun
Finding out just how fast your brother's boat'll run
I tell you there ain't nothing that'll test your faith
Like a long sermon on a pretty Sunday

[Verse 2]
Well it's been raining all week long
I woke up this morning, the dark clouds were gone
We've both been raised not to miss church
But on a day like today heaven knows how much it hurts

[Chorus]

[Bridge]
See that sunlight shining through that stained glass
How much longer is this gonna last?

What you have just read are lyrics from a country song by Brad Paisley and I love it because it pokes fun at the expense of an unpardonable sin in modern preaching...I've been guilty of the sin of preaching a long sermon more than once, and as recent as my current lay preaching resurrection.

Everything moves rapidly nowadays, and everybody is restless. Attention spans are short. Any Church liturgy which cannot be curtailed, is commonly read prodigiously fast. Even political speeches are not nearly so long as they used to be, and lengthy editorials in print seldom get read. 

The average church sermon length, according to one poll, ranges 20 to 28 minutes. If this statistic is accurate, and I might be criticized for the suggestion, it is a telling indicator of the spiritual depth of today's churches.

I believe that the better a person understands the Word of God, the more they will grow spiritually. How is it then that we think we can grow more with a decreased appetite for God’s Word? I find it difficult to believe that current pastors with their 20-minute sermon-ettes, can reach any level of comparable depth to the 80 minutes (or more) pastors used to be given (between morning and evening services).

Still it is a fact of current church life to which we must be cognizant, as challenging as it might be.

Trust me, I am sensitive to the length of my sermons -- almost to the degree of paranoia. In spite of my sensitivity, and as hard as I try, I am prone to losing track of time when I am delivering a message from the pulpit. More often than not, sermons that I prepare to fit ideally into an 18-minute time slot, can get away from me as the result of heavy explanation of biblical content at the expense of connecting my congregation with the biblical implications of the text. 

More than once after completing a sermon I have glanced at my watch and haven't been able to believe where the time went. I'm seriously considering planning superficial sermons to cover a 10-minute time span, just to be on the safe side. That way, in the end, I should come in around 18 minutes.

A couple of Sunday's ago a fellow, talking over the heads of several others, said "Boy, that was quite a sermon!" I knew exactly what he meant.

I am a great one for feedback. I look for it, but must confess that what you get can often cut to the quick. Just this past weekend in a telephone conversation with the Moderator of the four-church co-operative ministry that I serve, I asked if there had been any feedback on how I was being received by the respective congregations. With an awkward chuckle, he responded: "Well, long sermons..."

While I wasn't surprised by that hesitant response, I was left feeling somewhat deflated at a time when I would have welcomed something more encouraging. I don't mind admitting, I relish being stroked...It keeps me coming back for more. I'm kind of funny that way.

Ultimately, the question for me is not, “How long I preach?” The question is, “How well do I help others to behold God’s glory in my preaching?” To do that, it requires a significant amount of preparation (for me an average of 30 hours per sermon), prioritized time during the worship service, much prayer, and the grace of God.

Or, as a fellow by the name of John Stott once said, “It doesn’t matter how long you preach, it should feel like 20 minutes.”

One of the best answers to this question was given by John MacArthur in his book Rediscovering Expository Preaching. He explained that a sermon should last:

"...As long as it takes to cover the passage adequately! I do not think the length of the sermon is as important as its content. . . .The important thing is to cover the main points so that people are convinced of its truth and comprehend its requirements. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, even 20 minutes will seem like an eternity to your people."

How well I am aware of that!

God have mercy on me a sinner!

I REMEMBER...

Remembrance Day at the Dresden cenotaph in the 1950s.

The approach of Remembrance Day 2019 is synonymous for me with the old Kent Regiment of my youth and life in a small town during and following World War Two.

The Kent Regiment was an infantry reserve regiment of the Canadian Forces. In 1954 it was amalgamated with The Essex Scottish Regiment to form The Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment.

Kent Regiment hat badge: A collector's
item -- at least for this collector.

This regiment was formed on January 1, 1901 when it was given the title of the 24th Kent Regiment, with the headquarters stationed in Chatham. As with many regiments in the Canadian Forces, the 24th Kent Regiment was renamed, and more than once. In December 1936, the regiment was redesignated as The Kent Regiment (MG) when it amalgamated with B Company, 2nd Machine Gun Battalion, CMGC. Eventually, it was named The Kent Regiment on April 1, 1941.

The Kent Regiment did not go overseas as a unit during World War II, but was on active duty for coastal defense in Nova Scotia and British Columbia; and power station guard near Niagara Falls. They also provided reinforcements to many Ontario units serving overseas, most importantly the Essex Scottish, especially after Dieppe. Both The Kent Regiment and The Essex Scottish raised 2nd Battalions for reserve service in Canada as Non-Permanent Active Militia (NPAM).

Not only was my cousin Major Jack R. Sharpe a one-time Commanding Officer of the regiment in Chatham, but our Dresden High School Cadet Corps Company was a benefactor in the form of ill-fitting hand-me-down uniforms and rifles during the 1940s. Our 2nd Dresden Boy Scouts Drum and Bugle Band was also totally fronted with instruments from the former regimental band (disbanded in nearby Chatham at the end of WW2).

ME THE ARMY GUY

I am reminded too of Army Sgt. Major Bob Markham, a Dresden veteran of WW2, who helped out with our high school cadet corps under the guidance of another veteran (WW1) and math teacher Capt. Frank Brown. For some reason, Bob took me under his wing and for two years I accompanied him along with several other lads, to weekly regimental training sessions, first at the armories in Wallaceburg then Chatham headquarters after  amalgamation of the Kent and Essex-Scottish regiments in 1954. When I was in Bob's company, he insisted on me calling him "Sir" -- always the epitome of a hard-nosed army drill sergeant.

It was in 1954 that I had the honor of serving as Commanding Officer of Lambton-Kent District High School Cadet Corps No. 12292.

Military and war was indeed front and centre in the lives of Canadians in the 1940's, even into the 1950s as a result of the Korean conflict.

The Second World War forever altered Canada. Among those most affected were young Canadians. The war had a profound impact on their lives and families.

The six-year-long war brought changes to the world order and forever altered Canada. The nation of then only 11 million people committed more than one million men and women to uniform. Among those most affected were young Canadians, whose voices were often lost in the cacophony of war. Children leave few written records, and their contributions are sometimes ignored by historians. But the war had a profound impact on their lives and families.

New Responsibilities for those on the homefront

The adults started to disappear from children's lives soon after the war started. Older brothers, uncles and fathers enlisted in the military and were posted across the country or sent overseas. Male teachers slowly abandoned the classroom for service in the armed forces. They went from men in civilian dress to uniformed heroes — and sometimes martyrs. Occasionally, the wounded returned limping, cradling an arm, or missing limbs. Visible scars and invisible wounds to the mind left these veterans forever changed. Children and adolescents feared for their own loved ones.

While fathers and siblings were away on duty, children were expected to help around the house. New chores fell to children, everything from cooking to cleaning. Some mothers entered the paid workforce in white-or blue-collar jobs, and older children had to look after younger siblings. Newspapers carried ads seeking help for “general housework” or to “assist with children.” Girls, sometimes as young as 10 or 12, were soon employed in these positions. They were expected to do this as they balanced homework and other duties.

Schools were plastered with posters encouraging students to do their bit, to avoid careless talk that might aid the enemy, and to be on the lookout for spies. Teachers taught lessons about the war overseas and Canada’s contributions to beating the enemy. Occasionally, a student disappeared from school for a few days, and the teachers explained that the boy or girl needed a rest because they had lost a loved one in the war. All the while, morale was to be kept up. “There’ll Always Be an England” or “God Save the King” were sung with relish. No one wanted to be found wanting in their patriotism.

Victory Gardens were encouraged. At school and at home, wherever there was a free patch of earth, children planted seeds and tended to their vegetables. Every bunch of carrots or canning of jam was portrayed as a blow in battling the Nazis. Children in rural areas sniffed at the city gardens as they engaged in back-breaking labour on farms.

Recycling was also depicted as essential to the war effort. Paper and metal scraps were gathered in large salvage drives. Renderings of fats were collected from kitchens. Some children cried as the First World War artillery pieces from the battlefields of the Somme or Passchendaele, that had been situated in front of libraries or near city hall and climbed over in make-believe games, were now melted down to form new armaments. Canadians were instructed to recycle and reuse. Nothing was to be wasted in the fight.

Babysitting money and allowances went towards purchasing war stamps. The stamps were sold at school and in stores, and children purchased each for 25 cents. Sixteen filled up a $4 card, which was then sent to the federal government. In return, the child received a War Savings Certificate worth $5, to be cashed in after the war. The money raised was substantial; in the city of Edmonton in the single year of 1945, $41,926 was put towards War Savings Certificates.

The Girl Guides and Boy Scouts continued their good work, helping out those soldiers’ families that required aid and, in the case of the girls, knitting socks and scarves for military members overseas.Pen pals — soldiers, sailors, airmen and other children — were written to in Britain.

Closer to home, Canadian children went to school with more than 7,000 British children who had been evacuated from Britain to Canada, most of them in 1940, amid fears of a German invasion. These “guest children” stayed with Canadian families. Some made lifelong friendships with their Canadian foster parents and siblings; others were exploited and put to work for a pittance under harsh conditions and in unloving environments. Most of the children returned to their British families before the end of the war.

Not all Canadian children were allowed to participate in the war effort. Canadians of German or
Italian descent were teased, taunted or assaulted. The victims sometimes fought back, insisting they were as Canadian as anyone else, but most slunk away to the shadows, not anxious to draw attention to their heritage. Gloria Harris recounted that, "We were never, ever allowed to forget that we were foreign. I was born in this country, but I was ‘foreign.’”

Canadians of Japanese descent were actively harassed after Canada went to war with Japan in December 1941. Children were among the 23,000 Japanese Canadians who were viewed as threats to Canada's security and moved by the government from their homes on the British Columbia coast to communities and camps in the interior and Eastern Canada, several in Kent County close to my home in Dresden.

Blackout drills to prepare for enemy bomber attacks (which never came) left young minds wondering if Germany or Japan would soon launch an invasion. Sports teams adopted military names, such as Corvettes or Spitfires. Books for young adults were soon filled with stories of brave Canadians fighting the Germans. Children learned the names of famous battle sites such as Dieppe and Ortona,
of the warships struggling to protect merchant vessels in the Battle of the Atlantic, and of Lancaster aircraft bombing German cities.

There was a surge during the war years of Canadian-content comics, known as “whites” because of the coloured covers and the black and white interiors. Canadian heroes Johnny Canuck, Nelvana of the Northern Lights, and Canada Jack battled Nazis and other villains.

There were wartime games too. A variation of the old favourite Snakes and Ladders was reissued as Bomb Berlin. New games included the bingo-like Bomb the Axis, as well as the bilingual War Game/Jeu de Guerre. Toy guns, helmets, and uniforms could be donned to defeat the enemy in make-believe battles.

Young Canadians went to the movies to see their cartoons and comedies, but many also watched war films like Mrs. Miniver— the story of the evacuation of British soldiers from Dunkirk, or wartime thrillers like Casablanca. Radio programs like L is for Lankey followed the stories of Bomber Command aircrews taking the fight to the Germans.

Then there were shortages and rationing

From the midpoint of the war, Canadian families dealt with shortages of sugar, meat, butter and gasoline. Rationing coupons were issued to provide a fair share to all. The conditions in Canada were far better than in war-torn Europe, but children lamented the lack of chocolate bars or Sunday drives to the country or nearby rivers and lakes.

In the larger cities, especially Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Montréal, and Halifax, there were housing shortages. Working-class families had to double up in homes or live in garages, basements or attics. Three kids to a bed was not uncommon. Other families took in female civilian workers or military personnel. These strangers in the home usually fit in nicely, although it could be odd for children to lose a brother to the services and gain an outsider in return.

In more rural communities, children witnessed the creation of new runways and flight schools for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which brought airmen from across the country and throughout the Commonwealth or the United States into their towns. The exotic New Zealanders, South Africans, and Australians walked city or village streets. The world was coming to Canadian communities across a nation festooned with 107 air training schools and 184 ancillary units at 231 sites.

While younger children were preoccupied with many projects, there was a fear that teenagers might be corrupted by the lack of supervision during the war. Drinking, dancing and cavorting with the opposite sex were moral corruptions for delinquent teenagers. Stories of youth gangs roaming the streets at night stealing tires and other rationed goods were more products of worry than reality, although some high-profile cases seemed to confirm fears that teenagers were on the brink of a downward spiral. Sensational films, like Where Are Your Children? featured parents who lost control of their wayward teenagers to the sins of pool halls, joy rides, and all manner of worrisome activities.

The non-conformity among teenagers was illustrated by the zoot suit craze. Following a trend in the United States, young people slipped into zoot suits — oversized pants cinched at the waist and worn high to create a balloon effect, topped off with a long coat with padded shoulders, a flamboyant bowtie, and a wide-brimmed hat. In several of the large cities, and especially Montréal, there were clashes between military members and zoot suiters. Pushing back against the authorities and the war effort, the anti-war and anti-conscriptionist zoot suiters were often attacked by Anglo gangs and service personnel, with large-scale clashes occurring in May and June 1944.

Children and teenagers treasured the black and white photographs of fathers or older siblings who were away fighting the war. Cameras were rare, and there might have been only a handful of images in the house. Meanwhile, the war overseas was always present. Children anxiously searched newsreels, which played before movies, for a glimpse of a familiar face. They fingered the souvenirs in their pockets that had been sent home from overseas by their brothers and dads and were invested with deep meaning. Letters were read over and over again, and young Canadians wrote to their loved ones about their activities at school or sports, the books they read, and how they hoped for a reunion.

The war in Europe ended on 8 May 1945, and children were among the millions of Canadians who were swept up in the excitement. Most young people took pride in having done their bit, with their service marked by knitting socks, helping in the home or on the farm, having dirty fingernails from gardening, and collecting mountains of scrap metal for recycling.

The celebrations, songs and outpourings of joy were mixed with the knowledge that some neighbours’ uncles, brothers and fathers were never returning home. Sometimes the loss struck even closer to home. That grief would stay with young Canadians all their lives, while others never forgot the relief in seeing a dad or brother walk through the family’s front door once again.

The National Memorial (Silver) Cross Mother is chosen annually by the Royal Canadian Legion to represent the mothers of Canada at the National Remembrance Day Ceremony in Ottawa on November 11. She will lay a wreath at the base of the National War Memorial on behalf of all mothers who lost children in the military service to their nation. During her year-long tenure, which begins on November 1st, she performs other official duties, as required. The Memorial Cross (more often referred to as the Silver Cross) is awarded to mothers and widows (next of kin) of Canadian soldiers who died on active duty or whose death was consequently attributed to such duty.