PICKED UP IN PASSING: ABOUT FRENEMIES

The term "Frenemy" is a combination of the words friend and enemy used to describe a person with whom one is friendly, despite a fundamental dislike or rivalry. It may also refer to a person who combines the characteristics of both a friend and an enemy. Frenemy applies to relationships among individuals, groups, or institutions, and unfortunately, the church and its members are no exception.

A pastor was having coffee with a friend when he was asked about his Church membership. "We have eight hundred members," he said. "How many are active members?" the friend asked. "All of them," the pastor replied..."Half are working with me, the other half are working against me." He then spelled it out in what he calls a “washbasin theology.”

"In the story of Jesus' Passion,” the pastor explained, “Jesus showed the disciples by His example what to do about His Presence in their lives. He called for a basin and proceeded to wash their feet. When Pontius Pilate had to decide what to do about Jesus' Presence in his life, he called for a basin and proceeded to wash his hands of the whole thing."

In the Gospel we read, "Anyone who is not against us is for us" (Mk. 9:40). In Matthew, Jesus says, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and He who does not gather with Me scatters" (Mt. 12:30).

Both sayings deliver the same message: when it comes down to the unvarnished truth about Jesus and Christianity, the Gospel is never neutral. Unlike membership in ordinary man-made institutions, any notion of inactive Church members, passive Church members, even “Frenemy” Church members, is a contradiction.

Which one do you see when you look in a mirror? Doesn't really matter, as long as you accept that Lord and Saviour presence in your life.

THE FURTHER WE GO THE MORE IN DECLINE WE BECOME

Andrew Potter is a Canadian author and associate professor at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. He is the former editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen; best known outside Canada for co-authoring The Rebel Sell, with Joseph Heath, and for his 2010 book, The Authenticity Hoax.

If you think western civilization is withering away by almost every measure possible, it is not just your imagination. But the trajectory of the past few decades is not necessarily irreversible. “This is not the end of the world,” Andrew Potter writes in his new book 'In Decline'. Decline is not extinction. Nor is it the end of hope or happiness.”

Still, it’s time to give our heads a long overdue shake and come to terms with reality. No matter how willingly we surrender to the delusions our political elites encourage in us, sooner or later the facts will intrude and force us to face them. As potter says, “It’s time we accepted that we’re in a state of decline.”

Quite a few of us, rightly or wrongly, have already accepted the argument. Three years ago, a team of researchers working with the Our World in Data project at Oxford University undertook an opinion survey of 26,489 people in 28 countries, which showed that most people appear to agree with Potter’s thesis. 

Anyway, those Oxford researchers asked this question: “All things considered, do you think the world is getting better or worse?” Globally, most people said it’s getting worse, and the pessimism was most pronounced in the world’s wealthier countries. In France and Australia, for instance, only three per cent of respondents thought the world was getting better.

This might seem to suggest that Potter’s kicking at an open door. And there are nuances in play that seem to contradict Potter’s thesis. But on closer examination, they don’t.

If civilization itself is on the decline, so is extreme poverty, almost everywhere. Only one in five of the Oxford survey’s respondents were aware of that — most people thought it was getting worse. The data shows that not only has the scourge of extreme poverty been vanishing from the world for the past two centuries, what’s left of it in the 21st century is disappearing faster than ever before. Likewise, only about four in 10 of the respondents knew that child mortality is on the wane. In fact, since 1998, child mortality rates have been cut in half.

It’s not as though there’s anything new about the future looking grim. The boomer generation grew up in the certain dread of either an imminent nuclear apocalypse or mass famine owing to a human population that was expected to continue expanding exponentially until the planet was inevitably incapable of feeding and sustaining our species. As things turned out, we haven’t nuked ourselves into oblivion, and the earth’s human population is expected to level off and go into steep decline well before the end of this century.

But Potter acknowledges all this, and goes further. For about 150 years, with more than a few grotesque collapses into barbarism, there’s a steady pattern of civilization’s inexorable rise. The arc of history bends in the direction of “progress,” as the word was once understood, and it’s bent in that direction by the pre-eminence of reason, liberal democracy and the rule of law. All those charts and graphs that show up in the works of Steven Pinker and other optimists are headed towards light, not darkness. They’re among the most obvious universal benefits of the Enlightenment.

Potter’s point is that we’ve been living off the fruits of that bounty, and for all the astonishing achievements in digital technologies over the past few decades, it’s all been built upon achievements from our grandparents’ time. “We’re spinning our wheels,” Potter argues, “and we have been for a few years now.”

In the world’s advanced economies, real wages and salaries among the middle class have barely budged since the 1970s. Housing, education and health-care costs continue to go through the roof. A single-income household with several children, once the norm among the working class, is now a way of life reserved for the rich.

In Canada, a $10-a-day daycare subsidy, one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s selling points during the just-concluded federal election campaign, is supposed to be a big deal. We boast about our immigration rates being among the highest in the world, but Canada’s population would shrivel without a constant stream of newcomers because this is a country where millions of people can’t even afford to have children.

The federal election itself was an ample illustration of Potter’s case. With liberal democracy in full retreat around the world, police states like China and Russia in the ascendant and fragile democracies reverting to strongman regimes, Canadians were exhorted to go to the polls for the third time in six years. The campaign ended with a replication of the 2019 election, with Trudeau returning to power with only a third of the popular vote.

Even so, after the votes were counted Monday night, Trudeau declared: “Thank you, Canada, for casting your vote, for putting your trust in the Liberal team, for choosing a brighter future.”

"But it’s not easy to imagine a bright future when our governments can’t seem to get anything done. From the big stuff — meeting global carbon-emissions targets — to the relatively smaller stuff of being able to pay wages, Canada’s predicament is typical," suggests Terry Glen in his review of "In Decline."

"Potter doesn’t mention it, but a case in point is the federal government’s attempts to fix its broken payroll process with the Phoenix pay system, which collapsed as soon as it was booted up five years ago. Thousands of federal employees ended up underpaid or overpaid, or went without pay, and it’s only now that the new Ceridian human-resources software is coming online. Last month, the backlog of unprocessed payments was still in excess of 100,000."

"In the teeth of COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve fared no worse than most developed countries, but that’s hardly saying much. The world was well into the pandemic’s maelstrom before Canada’s chief public health officer, Theresa Tam, admitted that an outbreak in Canada was even likely," Glen adds.

Central to Potter’s thesis is the proposition that the Enlightenment did not eradicate the magical thinking of superstitious preliterate societies. Unreason has lingered, on the right and on the left, and we’re all submitting to rigidly enforced belief systems that affirm irrational beliefs rather than illuminate the real world all around us. 

It is not as though we’ve reached the Enlightenment’s summit and pulled up the ladder behind us, Potter contends. “Life will simply get more and more difficult every year as earth’s remaining humans retreat even further into their various tribes.”

In a recent podcast interview Potter alluded to the fact that there is no declineometer in his book, adding "I hope I'm wrong!"

I certainly do too, but now he's got me thinking.

IN DEFENSE OF BEING A POLITICIAN TODAY

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 18, 2021.

Several federal elections ago I expressed sympathy on Wrights Lane for a local veteran Member of Parliament who had performed admirably over the course of three terms in office but suffered an unexpected upset defeat in the latest polls of the period. 

In this particular post I speculated on how personally disappointing and devastating it must have been for her, and other defeated incumbents for that matter, to swallow such a bitter pill. We all experience defeats of various kinds in our lives, but very few of us suffer the public humiliation of rejection at the hands of our voting peers.

I was subsequently taken to task for my views on this occasion by an anonymous individual who said I had caused him to "get out a crying towel." He went on to suggest that federal politicians are well compensated for their efforts with paid expenses and, in the end, walking away with comfortable retirement compensation. (In all fairness it should be pointed out here that The Members of Parliament Pension Plan is not an outright gift or perk of office. It is a contributory defined benefit pension plan that serves more than 1,000 active and retired senators and members of the House of Commons. The plan offers eligible plan members a lifetime pension benefit when they retire.)

With the latest Canadian election only a matter of a few days away, I was once again reminded of the folly in running for political office. To coin a phrase, "It certainly takes a special type of person."

Generally, there is no denying that most elected representatives work long hours; have little time for family life and are forever at risk of losing their seats. The nature of politics invites criticism and close scrutiny by members opposite and by disillusioned citizens, a process which if exercised civilly can contribute positively to public accountability. But balance and fair judgement rarely, if ever, enters the picture.

Unfortunately, the coarseness of public discourse these days, riddled as it is with name-calling and sneering invective against "anybody who disagrees with you," suggests a hardness of heart in the body politic that is stifling the impulses of reason. Social media is, of course, a prime platform for the spewing of public dissatisfaction and disrespect.

I agree with a fellow commentator who has written colorfully that "language used by politicians and the public alike increasingly is being used as ammunition in a crude arsenal, like so many cudgels, barbed spears and poisoned arrows, to express disaffection, fear, cynicism, bitterness and animosity. As those harsh sentiments echo in the public mind, they spread like the thick goo of an oil spill, smothering the resilience of such vital human traits as reason, understanding, wisdom and courage in the face of confusion and adversity."

Quite frankly, I could never function in that kind of environment. I'm just not built that way. Without question it takes a special kind of person with sufficient ego and dedication to endure the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't reality of a political life, particularly at the demanding provincial and federal levels.

Can you imagine day in and day out getting up in the morning knowing that there is a segment of the population that demonstrably hates your guts and that members of opposing parties will assuredly be prepared to attack you at the least provocation.

Conversely, can you imagine going to bed at night dead tired and with two options -- 1) trying to forget the sting, negativity and challenges of the day, or 2) rebuttal by means of conjuring up commonly expected fighting-fire-with-fire tactics. To my way of thinking it is a vicious circle and no way for anyone to live on a constant basis.

In spite of occasional differences of opinion and other small irritants, politicians generally are admirable people who deserve more respect in today's troubled times.

It's easy to be a backseat driver, much harder to drive. Politicians have to make sometimes very difficult decisions, knowing that millions of lives will be affected to varying degrees. We can say what we like about political matters knowing there's little consequence if we're wrong. Politicians, on the other hand, have to deal with the knowledge that the whole country could be harmed by their actions and their names forever black marked.

And as I say, our elected representatives put up with ceaseless criticism. With thousands of people constantly sharing mocking cartoons of them, writing about how much they dislike them, and criticizing their looks, their emotions or lack of emotions, and virtually everything else they do. Particularly in an age that is quick to take offence (on both the left and right), they put up with an endless stream of insults and that to me displays an admirable tenacity and thick skin.

The job of politician is also an insecure one where you can lose everything in an instant, and you have to face the humiliation of public rejection. In a nutshell, to be a politician requires a strength of character that deserves at least a token of our respect and admiration.

After all, politicians are only human beings, just a little masochistic by nature if you ask me.

BLACK CANADIAN CHARLEY KELLY PLAYED A ROLE IN INTRODUCING THE GAME OF BASEBALL TO BRITAIN

A game played on Smith’s Lawn in 1917 attended by the Royal Party, this colourised photo (courtesy of Macleans) shows a batter at the plate –- possibly Charlie Kelly. In his authoritative book Nine Innings for the King, Jim Leeke  tells us that in 1918 Sunningdale played in bluish-grey uniforms with a maple leaf on the pockets – and the colourisation of this uniform suggests maybe this is the same team. Note the umpire behind home plate is a uniformed Canadian Army officer.

With thanks to the Folkestone Baseball Chronicle and the Canadian Baseball History web sites we learn of Charlie E Kelly, a native of Ingersoll, Ontario, who was the first Black star of Baseball in Britain.

Charlie Kelly “was an outstanding baseball pitcher and hard hitter” – so begins his Ingersoll (Ontario) Sports Hall of Fame nomination. The next paragraph gives highlights of an extraordinary career.

“While with the Canadian Army overseas in 1917, he pitched against an All-Star USA Team in London, England winning 2-1. Charlie pitched against Herb Pennock, a star in the Major Baseball League. King George was a spectator and congratulated Kelly with a hand shake for his 2-1 victory.”

Inducted into the Ingersoll Sports Hall of Fame 69 years after the games in Britain and 53 years after he passed away, the Charlie Kelly story is probably a little difficult to follow due to the patch work of reports from the WW1 period.

Private Charlie E. Kelly

Kelly enlisted in the Canadian Forestry Corps in February, 1916, at 25 years of age (service number 675459). On his attestation papers he listed his occupation as an “athlete” perhaps implying that he was professional.

By the summer of 1917 units from the Forestry Corps were based at Sunningdale, England, just a few miles outside of Windsor. Permission had been given for them and other Canadian units to play baseball on Smith’s Lawn, part of Windsor Great Park which constituted a portion of the overall grounds of the Royal Residence of Windsor Castle. 

The Reading Mercury newspaper (15th September 1917) reported on a match between the Foresters and the Orpington Military Hospital on Smith’s Lawn attended by the King and Queen.

The contest went scoreless through 7 ½ innings until the bottom of the 8th when Kelly, “their pitcher, who is a coloured man, secured the first run of the match…the excitement was intense, and the cheering deafening.” Orpington tied the score in the top of the 9th only for the Foresters to snatch the win in the bottom of the inning when a dropped catch allowed a run scored, the Foresters winning 2 to 1. 

After the game the King mingled with the players and officers. The newspaper report notes that he shook hands with many of them.

The Reading Mercury later reported the following: “The King and Queen have taken the greatest interest in baseball since a Canadian Forestry Corps has been encamped in the Windsor district, and they have frequently motored over to see an important game decided.”

Kelly again pitched for the Foresters in a 17-13 win over the Astorias (a team drawn from the Convalescent Hospital at Cliveden House in Taplow, owned by Waldorf and Nancy Astoria, after whom the team was nicknamed). Played on the Dolphin Grounds at Slough, the high scoring game was attributed to the rough state of the ground.

Such was the success and popularity of the Forestry Corps team that in 1918 they were invited to join the Anglo-American Baseball League, their proximity to London and the unlikelihood of players being transferred to the front were additional bonuses. In the AABL the team played under the name of Sunningdale. Initially successful, and unbeaten in the early rounds, Sunningdale faded away finishing the league in fifth place (out of eight) with a 5-7 (.417) record. Among the Canadian teams only Epsom finished higher (third place).

It is known from a number of reports that Charlie Kelly featured prominently in all games played by the Sunningdale team.

The AABL, and before that the exclusively Canadian Military Leagues took baseball across the country and brought the game to regions previously untouched in British Baseball History.

Private Rankin Wheary

Back home after the war Charlie Kelly continued playing baseball in the Ingersoll district of Ontario until illness cut short his career in 1927. Although not the first black player to play baseball in Britain (there were all-coloured teams as early as 1898 about whom there is little information) – and not the first black player to be mentioned in the press (*Canadian soldier Rankin Wheary, a talented shortstop, also played for Folkestone in 1916) – he was the first to receive national prominence and to be photographed widely in the national press.

Footnote: * Rankin Wheary was the product of a humble home: his father was a labourer whose grandfather had come to New Brunswick, probably with the loyalists; his mother was a domestic servant from Scotland. A year after his father’s death in 1911, Rankin left the College School in Woodstock and worked around town to help support his mother and younger sister. He then went off to war.

In turn-of-the-century Woodstock, a loyalist shire-town on the Saint John River, relations between whites and the small black community were friendly and segregation was not readily apparent. Baseball was popular and young Rankin took up the game with enthusiasm. He played schoolboy ball and then was a star pitcher and hitter for the Woodstock Federals, playing teams along the river valley and across the border in Maine. 

British Baseball was integrated long before the Major Leagues, and the examples of Wheary and Kelly, the two most prominent Black Canadians playing in Britain elicited no negative comment in the British press. This is not to say that they had it easy, nor that they didn’t encounter prejudice (they did – notably Black Canadians initially had extraordinary difficulty in enlisting and it took intervention from the Federal Government to confirm they were allowed).

Even in the 1920’s a handful of match reports in the British press indicated that certain team’s were all-Coloured, and though not negatively expressed as such, certain epithets that today would be deemed derogatory and unacceptable were openly published. 

Similarly though Kelly and Wheary seemingly had no difficulty playing integrated baseball in their home towns, not all Canadian leagues at the time were integrated and vice versa. 

A clipping from the Daily Mirror newspaper.

ABOUT THE SOUL: YOURS AND MINE

Thanks to Plato for the confirmation. I needed that!

I touched on the complex and little-understood subject of  the human "soul"  in a previous post when I stated: "We are left to accept/believe ancient Biblical pronouncements for where we go after our soul leaves our dead physical presence."

In many religious, philosophical, and mythological traditions, the soul is the incorporeal essence of a living being. Soul or psyche comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, qualia, memory, perception, thinking, etc. Depending on the philosophical system, a soul can either be mortal or immortal.

Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, understood that the soul must have a logical faculty, the exercise of which was the most divine of human actions. In Judaism and in some Christian denominations, only human beings have immortal souls (although immortality is disputed within Judaism). 

The debate about the existence of the soul and whether it is immortal or dies with the person is an endless story that for centuries has occupied the time of the great thinkers of universal history. Its mysterious nature continues to fascinate different areas of science, but now a group of researchers has discovered a new truth about it: the “soul” does not die; it returns to the universe.

Since 1996, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an American Physicist, and Emeritus in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, have worked in a Quantum Theory of Consciousness in which they state that the soul is maintained in microtubules of the brain cells.

Their ‘provocative’ theory states that the human soul is being contained by the brain cells in structures inside them called microtubules.

The two researchers believe the human brain is, in fact, a ‘biological computer’ and the ‘consciousness of humans’ is a program run by the quantum computer located inside the brain that even continues to exist after we ‘die.’

Furthermore, both scientists argue that what humans perceive as ‘consciousness’ is, in fact, the result of ‘quantum gravity’ effects located within the so-called ‘microtubules.’ This process is named after the two scientists as “Orchestrated Objective Reduction” (Orch-OR).

The theory indicates that when people enter a phase known as ‘clinical death,’ the microtubules located in the brain lose their quantum state but maintain the information contained within them. In other words – as experts explain it, after people die, their soul returns to the universe, and it does not die’.

Speaking to the Science Channel’s "Through the Wormhole" documentary, Dr. Hameroff said:

“Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing; the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, and it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says 'I had a near-death experience.' If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

For me, this very scientific explanation comes as close as humanly possible to taking some of the mystery out of the subject. When we die our soul lives on universally in the form of microtubules from our computer-like brain that carry with them the critical essence of who we were in previous life.

That is really all I need to know.

I can now make realistic correlations to Biblical teachings.

THERE'S LITTLE WE CAN DO ABOUT THE STORMS OF LIFE

With thunder rumbling over Lake Huron this particular afternoon and bringing with it heavy winds, rain, hail and tornado potential prompting Environment of Canada warnings, I rounded up all the spare candles in my house in the event of a power outage and proceeded to wait it out in the shelter of my front porch, as I so often do.

Storms do not intimidate me. In fact I love to be exposed to them for as long as possible in the outdoors. There is something relaxing, yet awe-inspiring, in giving into a storm. Realizing my vulnerability with the powerful force of nature's elements, I am always reminded of how helpless and insignificant I really am in the face of it all.

I cannot do one single thing to stop a storm. All I can do is enjoy the calm that always follows and live with the consequences in the aftermath, be they good or bad. It is that way with a lot of things in life.

Think about deadly fact-of-life diseases that have plagued the world since the beginning of time and the current COVID pandemic that is killing millions of people world-wide and affecting the existence of millions more. 

Long story made short: In spite of superhuman efforts and the expenditure of billions of dollars by governments, the COVID virus will never be stopped, or eradicated. 

Simply stated, there is no highly effective vaccine or antiviral treatment for coronavirus. A disease that can be eradicated must be either preventable or curable. Smallpox is preventable with a vaccine. Hepatitis C is curable with certain antiviral drugs. (Because of this, some in the biomedical community are pushing for the eradication of hepatitis C.) But a highly effective vaccine for COVID is unlikely, given that humans probably don't develop long-lasting immunity to coronaviruses. Besides, some vaccines are unimpressive to begin with. The 2017-18 seasonal flu vaccine, for instance, was merely 38% effective.

This leaves one requirement that is essential to eradicate any infectious disease -- a concerted global effort. Imperfect as they are, that's why institutions like the World Health Organization are absolutely crucial in where we go from here. 

Without a doubt, millions are working around the globe to fight the coronavirus, but science tells us it won't be enough. Experts reveal that the basic biology of the disease will prevent eradication...In spite of best efforts, there will be nothing more we can do other than to learn to live with it.

There are just some things we cannot conquer and that we have to learn to accept or live with, doing what we can to limit the resultant impact.

Again, like weather storms, we wait it out; doing our best with what is at our disposal to limit  inevitable discomfort in the form of more taxes...and death.

We sometimes run, but we can never hide!

Meantime look for the proverbial silver lining behind those storm clouds of life that I truly believe are created to keep us honest and cognizant of how little in control we really are. We're only placed here for a short period of time so we might as well make the best of it while we can. Fulfilling our destiny, so to speak, with what we've been given in the form of intelligence, talents and skills sufficient to sustain life on earth for ourselves, our loved ones and mankind in general.

When it is over, it is over. That's all we really know for sure. There is no comprehension of the hereafter. We are left to accept/believe ancient Biblical pronouncements for where we go after our soul leaves our dead, decomposing or cremated, worldly physical presence that does exceptionally well to weather four score and seven. 

Is that really all there is, you may well ask a la songstress Peggy Lee?

To which I'm compelled to answer: I'm afraid so!

Make of it what you will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, oh yes, about that storm earlier today. It too passed and did not reach the forecast intensity for my area. That's the way it goes with the weather...You never know what you're going to get. Not that it makes any difference. We couldn't do anything about it anyway.

A TRIBUTE TO CHURCH LADIES PAST AND PRESENT

Floor grate from the 1940s  My secret hearing piece.

I have received a special request to re-produce one of my earliest posts on Wrights Lane.  "The Church Ladies" was/is one of my favorite subjects, but unfortunately Google inadvertently wiped it out of my archives along with 33 other posts, about 13 years ago.  I wanted to use "The Church Ladies" item in my book Wrights Lane...Come On In and ended up having to rewrite the story from memory.  Here is the re-worked version, with the addition of a few photographs  from the 1940-60 period that will suitably compliment the story. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My mother Grace, seated, with IODE friends (from the left) Betty Spearman, Dorothy Rigsby and Isabele Wismer at an IODE district meeting in London.  Circa 1950s.

I have fond memories of my early exposure to  the wonderful work of "church ladies". Regardless of denomination, the faithfulness and commitment of women's organizations have, without question, been the life blood of all communities and their churches across our nation.

At a very early age, I came to realize what women of the church really stood for, be they members of auxiliaries, societies, ladies aid or missionary groups. My mother Grace was extremely active in The Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (IODE), an all-inclusive group in my hometown of Dresden, bringing together women from all churches. Likewise, The Heather Club which was exclusive to the Presbyterian Church in Canada and St. Andrew's in Dresden.

In the early 1940s, I remember very clearly being relegated to my upstairs bedroom on evenings when my mother hosted Heather Club meetings and gatherings of the IODE.  I would curl up on the floor with my ear cupped to the metal grate that allowed warm air from downstairs to circulate to the unheated upper floor bedrooms. I would listen to what was transpiring in the parlour and living room below -- the prayers, God Save the Queen, hymns, committee reports, updates on care packages and those coarse woolen khaki socks and mitts so lovingly knit by the ladies for the troops ("our boys") overseas in World War Two.  Of course, there would always be at least one fund-raising program on the agenda to help bolster organization and church coffers.

I was able to put a face to every voice that came up through that dusty grate and I was fascinated by what was being said and who was saying it:  Several school teachers, the banker's wife, a nurse, my Aunt Hattie, several of my best friends' mothers, a druggist's wife, a farm lady who delivered eggs to us every Thursday, a choir leader with her unmistakable laugh, a minister's wife with her quiet voice of reason, occasionally my mother -- the collective face and voice of mission and outreach in churches and communities small and large, around the globe.

Looking back now, maybe I was hard-pressed for entertainment.  Maybe I was just curious -- maybe a combination of the two.  Remember that there were no televisions, i-pads, computers or cell phones in kids' bedrooms in those day.  Certainly, it was a different era and I am glad that I was brought up in it.  At that impressionable age I came to understand how the efforts of a small group of women in small-town Southwestern Ontario, could have such a far-reaching impact.

With the impression of the grate well embedded in my cheek, I would generally drift off to sleep just as tea cups began to tinkle amidst the soft din of female conversation at the conclusion of the business portion of the meetings.  All was right with my world.  I could depend that there would be leftover peanut butter cookies and at least one date square put aside for me next day, several of the ladies would always see to it.  I was warm and secure.  God was in Heaven and "The Church Lades" had everything under control.

Fond memories all, and an appreciation for the work that church women and organizations like the IODE have continued over the decades with much dedication and little fanfare.  I dare say that there are no inquisitive little boys eavesdropping on meetings these days, but it goes without saying that God has an ear to His Heavenly "grate" and He blesses all church ladies for what He is hearing.

 Members of the IODE always had a special birthday gift for seniors in Dresden area nursing homes.  Accompanying my mother for this presentation was IODE member Doris Dusten (right). My mother was known as "the cards and flowers lady."

ETHICS IN POLITICS: WE CAN START WITH OURSELVES

Apparent conflict of interest has important implications for the integrity of government, the public service, and individual public servants. It is therefore a key focus of the values and ethics regime of the public service. Public servants are required in their actions to be as concerned with preventing apparent conflicts of interest as they are with preventing real and potential conflicts of interest.

A "real" conflict of interest is where a public servant's private interests are sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties. A "potential" conflict of interest is where such a situation could arise in the future. An "apparent" conflict of interest, however, is where it appears to members of the public that a public servant's private interests could improperly influence the performance of his or her duties. "Private interests" are not limited to financial interests. -- as published by The Government of Canada

This post is as political as I'm ever going to get on Wrights Lane, but continual references to ethics and conflict of interest at the federal government level have increasingly bothered me to the point of taking it upon myself to do some personal checking of the facts of the matter. The results have been revealing to say the least, and indicative of politics in general today. 

Right or wrong, depending on your viewpoint, we learn that (un)ethical "crimes" per se have not been committed. What we do have have, however, are a number of documented cases where non-Criminal Code laws have been broken by recent governments and their respective leaders.

The Conflict of Interest Act came into effect in 2007. So while it is true that the current government has broken this law more than any other, the only one to compare with it is the government led by Stephen Harper.

In early February, the Conservative Party of Canada shared an attack ad on social media aimed at the current Liberal government. The video, viewed approximately 58,000 times on the Conservatives’ Facebook page, claims that Canada had never seen a government “break so many federal ethics and conflict of interest laws before” as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal majority. The narrator then says that the federal ethics commissioner has questioned three cabinet ministers—Bill Morneau, Dominic LeBlanc, and Jane Philpott—and investigated ethical breaches by Trudeau himself.

These claims are misleading, in large part because the Conflict of Interest Act, which governs the “ethical conduct” of public office holders, has only been in place during the terms of just two prime ministers -- the previously-mentioned Trudeau and Harper. Before the Conflict of Interest Act, there were no binding statutes or provisions regarding conflicts of interest for public office.

For the record, Trudeau’s Liberal government has been found guilty of breaking ethics rules on at least four occasions, two of those times by Trudeau himself. And, according to Democracy Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group, three members of the Harper government were also found guilty of breaking ethics rules. (Harper himself was accused of breaching the act on multiple occasions, as reported by the National Post, but he was never investigated or found guilty.) So it is technically accurate to say that Trudeau’s government has broken the law more than Harper’s.

Additional context is necessary, however. Trudeau and Harper predecessors could not have “broken the law” in the same way, but they were found to breach ethical guidelines many times.

Past iterations of federal ethical codes, as described in the procedure book House of Commons Procedure and Practice: Second Edition, all did basically the same thing: set out rules for the conduct of civil servants, cabinet ministers, and other public officials. But there were no binding provisions that ensured those who breached the guidelines would be penalized. Conflict-of-interest or ethics violations were investigated on a case-by-case basis. Serious accusations sometimes led to the resignation of public officials, like in the case of John A. Macdonald.

And, to be clear, though breaching the new Conflict of interest Act constitutes "breaking the law," it is not a Criminal Code offence. Section 52 of the Conflict of Interest Act outlines that contraventions are violations, not offences. The current maximum monetary penalty or fine for breaching the act is $500, which only applies when pubic office-holders fail to report conflicts of interest in a timely manner. Other violations have no penalty attached.

Always in politics, an ethics fine line is walked to gain an edge and opposition parties, in an effort to blunt that edge, are quick to draw the public's attention to "breaking a law" that, as it turns out, is really not a criminal offence.

Oh, what a tangled web our politicians weave on Parliament hill!

So what I'm leading up to in all of this is to ask "What else is new?" The breaking or bending of ethical standards is, and has been, synonymous with politics for ever and a day and not unlike business-as-usual in public life in general yesterday and today.

If only we knew what goes on behind closed doors...

Unfortunately, political ethics and personal morality are not always aligned. Some would argue that politicians should stick to universal principles such as justice or fairness to better govern the nation. On the other hand, political realists would argue that there is no room for ethics in politics or that ethical principles that rule citizens’ behavior should not apply to politicians. In fact, it is recognized that political leaders throughout history very often had to make unethical decisions in order to advance the interests of their nation or faction.

Moreover, the discussion on the divergence between personal and political ethics becomes even more interesting if we take into consideration that these rules, norms, standards, and moral precepts are not set in stone but evolve over time. 

A large part of the political battlefield is focused on morality and ethics, which can become powerful tools for the legitimization of political decisions. Ethics are used as a gigantic stick with which people beat those who believe differently from themselves. We see how sometimes the pursuit of public welfare or “the good life” can be replaced by crusades against “evil”. And political goals are used to justify means that in any different context would be considered as deeply unethical.

Thus, we witness how the search for power, influence and reputation rather than a genuine desire to do good for the citizenry at large,  underpins many of the decisions made by our representatives. Sure, we frequently complain about the lack of ethics on the part of our elected public servants but what about ourselves? Does that not reflect our own approach to life today? 

If we truly and genuinely wanted to make the world a better place, we would begin in our own neighborhoods by being more considerate of others. Being more collegial at work and doing more to help those in need. Keeping ethics at the forefront all our actions and relationships. Being less self-interest driven.

One may well accept the reality that society is adopting a rather lax or complacent stance on personal ethics all the while pointing fingers at the assumed wrongdoings of others. If indeed we are not strict with the ethics driving our own actions in private life, can we justify applying blame game rules when it suits our politics?

What is it they say about people who live in glass houses...?

Do you think ethics and politics can be reconciled? Are we more interested in throwing stones? If ethics is to be restored in the political arena then should we, the electorate, not start with ourselves? 

Are politicians like the citizens they represent, or vice versa?

Of course they/we are!

A Wrights Lane flashback post from August 2010, recalled with fondness for Facebook friends following a dialogue on the merits of reconnecting with old girl friends who impacted my formative years.💔💔

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Wrights Lane flashback post from August 2010, recalled with fondness for Facebook friends following a dialogue on the merits of reconnecting with old girl friends who impacted my formative years.💔💔

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EASY TO KISS, EASY TO FORGET

...courtesy of a first Love's mom?

A lot of what I write is for the benefit of my grandchildren, four being teenagers. Of course, as unbelievable as it may seem, we all were teens at one time, struggling to find identity and a niche in life, living each new experience with unbridled intensity and emotion.

The setting for this story is Cocoa, Florida, where I attended a baseball rookie training camp in the early months of 1956. Talk about "wet behind the ears", I was all of that and more. It was difficult enough trying to make the grade in professional baseball after just turning 18 years of age but I also had to hopelessly fall in love for the first time, just to complicate matters.

"The face of an angel," I gasped as my eyes fell on a breathtaking countenance engulfed by a sea of church choir members. The worship service on that Sunday morning at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Cocoa was a blur. That face in the choir was my sole focus. I was feeling something strange in the pit of my stomach.

As I left the sanctuary following the service I was startled by a tap on the shoulder. My heart jumped into my throat as I turned to see that face on a tall and statuesque body, standing in front of me. "Hi, my name is Sylvia. I saw you in the congregation and I just wanted to welcome you. Are you a ball player?" We chatted at length, exchanging information about ourselves on the church steps that unforgettable Sunday morning in the warm Florida sun. For a kid from small town Dresden, Ontario, this was the stuff of which dreams are made.

I learned that Sylvia was also 17 years of age and soon to graduate from high school. She played clarinet in the school band. Her mother was director of the church choir and her father was Chief of the nearby Cape Canaveral Police Force (later to become Cape Kennedy). I don't remember what I told Sylvia about myself, but I must have divulged the name of the lady who owned the home where I had been billeted. "I'd better get going. My mother has been waiting," exclaimed "that face" as we parted company. The four block walk that followed was as if I was floating on a cloud. My feet must have hit the sidewalk at some point, but it didn't feel like it.

Several hours later I was in the process of composing a letter to my mother when I heard the downstairs telephone ring. "Just one moment. I'll get him for you...Dick, it's a call for you!" came my landlady's voice from the foot of the stairs. "It's a girl," she said with a wide grin and a wink as she passed the receiver over to me.

To my disbelief it was Sylvia on the other end of the line, asking me if I had been to the ocean yet. I hadn't and she invited me to take a trip to the beach after baseball the next day -- "if I liked to". Needless to say, I liked to and we did. She picked me up in her parents' black 1955 Mercury and if this was a dream I didn't want to wake up. We had a glorious few hours ocean side, capped by an invitation to be her escort for the Cocoa District High School's annual Valentine's Ball. Adding to the honor of it all was the fact that Sylvia just happened to be a prime candidate for Queen of the Ball. 

I was also flabbergasted to learn that her up-to-then boy friend, a school basketball and football star named Bob, was also a shoe-in for King of the Ball. Needless to say, news that the potential Queen of the Ball would be escorted by an out of town baseball player and not the King-in-waiting, caused quite a stir in the school community.

Sylvia arranged for us to accompany two other couples, one of which would provide a car. Good thing too because I not only did not have access to a vehicle, I did not yet even have a driver's licence. Sylvia met me at her front door on the evening of the grand occasion and introduced me to her parents as I presented her with a break-the-bank orchid corsage. Another more uncomfortable introduction awaited me an hour later in the school auditorium.

"Bob, I want you to meet Dick Wright," Sylvia enthused to the hulking six foot plus, 200 pound figure looming large in front of me. As we shook hands at the entrance to the auditorium, I got the distinct impression that Bob was not all that impressed. I was certainly not one of his favorite people at that particular juncture in time and undoubtedly there was potential for someone else to be "crowned" that evening. I would have liked to know Bob better but something seemed to tell me that it would be advisable for me to stay clear of him for the duration of my stay in Cocoa.

The evening was an unqualified success. As expected, Sylvia and Bob were crowned Queen and King and I was overcome with apprehension as the Ball drew to a close. That apprehension was altered somewhat when Sylvia gently rested her head on my shoulder on our way home and softly whispered: "I don't want us to kiss tonight. My mother (see photo of Sylvia and her mom, circa 1970) kept saying over and over today 'easy to kiss, easy to forget' and I don't want you to ever forget me." On one hand I understood but on the other I was let down just a bit. I don't remember anything about the brief balance of the evening. 

The words "easy to kiss, easy to forget" resonated in my ears -- still do to this day. When I got back to my rooming house that night I noticed a slight smudge of lipstick on the lapel of my suit coat, left there by Sylvia when he snuggled close to utter those six mood altering words. I wore the suit for several years after that but could never quite bring myself to have the coat dry cleaned.

Shortly thereafter I signed a contract and shipped out to join my new team in Georgia. My heart was broken and I cried a lot for a few days. I was happy to have the opportunity to continue playing baseball in the states but I was reluctant to leave Sylvia and all that she had come to mean to me. I never told her, but I was truly in love for the first time. I never knew that love could hurt so much. "I'll come back some day," I tried to assure myself. As it turned out I never again saw Sylvia. We exchanged letters for several months but eventually we stopped corresponding. I don't know why. Long distance relationships are sometimes like that, especially when you are young with so much more to experience.

Sylvia's mother was probably right about that damn "easy to kiss, easy to forget" expression. I'm sure she would be pleased to know that I never did get to kiss her daughter. Likewise, I never forgot the face that so captured my fancy all those years ago. I wonder if her daughter remembers the kid from Canada that she never got to kiss!?

PICKED UP IN PASSING: WHAT PLAGUES US?

These days, it’s not uncommon to hear the sentiment that COVID-19 is a “plague.” Now we have a mutation of the virus, even more contagious than the original, and the plague analogies continue. 

For many people, a plague is something associated with an outbreak of infectious disease. But what is a “plague” in the ancient Hebrew context? Biblically speaking a plague can be any affliction or suffering that comes upon humanity.

In order to understand “plagues” biblically, we have to think beyond just sickness and death. For instance, in the famous 10 plagues of Egypt, God sent not just death, but also boils, hail, gnats, locusts, frogs, and darkness. Yes, hail and darkness were considered “plagues” from God, not undesirable meteorological events. 

The English “plague” can be a translation of not one, but multiple terms that appear in the Hebrew Bible. For example, נֶגַע (nega) is sometimes translated as “plague” but also “infection” and “affliction.” It literally means a “strike” or “blow.” The Hebraic logic is that being “wounded” or “stricken” is to be “plagued” on some level.

Another Hebrew word for “wound” or “striking” (מַכָּה; makah) is sometimes rendered as “plague” or “affliction” in English translations. Yet another common biblical term for “plague” is דֶּבֶר (dever), meaning “pestilence,” “plague,” or “death.” All of these terms were used to describe the 10 afflictions God sent upon the Egyptians (see Exodus 11:1; 1 Samuel 4:8). Jeremiah refers to a punishment “by sword, starvation, and pestilence” (בַּחֶרֶב וּבָרָעָב וּבַדֶּבֶר; baherev u’vara’av u’vadever) to describe the divine chastisement of Israel (Jeremiah 14:12; 21:9). And translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek sometimes used the word θάνατος (thanatos), meaning “death,” to express this idea of a plague.

Why does “plague” language sound so frightening and ominous to modern readers? Perhaps because a simple sickness, a disease, or even a virus can be managed in the modern world of medicines, but a biblical plague cannot be controlled. And it’s true that God is usually the source of a biblical plague, and not much can be done to stop the punishment short of divine mercy. 

Ancient Israelites believed that absolutely everything in this world is under the Almighty’s control: rain, sun, crops, harvest, lifespan, and even the number of hairs on your head! (see Matthew 6:27, 10:30). Why should we treat something like COVID-19, even something considered to be a plague, any different than all other afflictions? 

Apparently, ancient Israelites did not do that. Panic and fear typically lead us away from from our faith. But facing any suffering or adversity with faith will always build us up.

IT'S ABOUT THE ROUTINE I'M IN WHEN THERE'S LITTLE ELSE I CAN DO WITH MY LIFE

The thought just struck me. I've written a lot recently about life, God, myself...a whole lot of things. So what now?

What have I learned and how is this all going to impact me now? Can I do anything differently? Perhaps something exciting, personally enhancing or challenging.

The answer(s) to all of the above = NO! and NOTHING!

Earlier in life we're so often defined by our jobs and family responsibilities -- doctor, teacher, politician, construction worker, wife, husband, mother, father -- and our special interests or hobbies. But take that all away, what have you got?

Just think, I'm going to wake up (hopefully) tomorrow morning, have my breakfast, spend some time on the computer, think of something new to write, ponder all the chores I could be doing but that can be put off for another day, have lunch, spend some more time on the computer, fall asleep, maybe buy some groceries if there's time, have a late supper, fall asleep at the table, spend some more time on the computer, watch the tail end of a Blue Jays game and the late news on TV, check the computer  one last time before turning it off for the night just to see if I have any emails or Facebook activity -- and while I'm at it do some quick revisions to several things I've written during the day because if I don't I will not be able to sleep properly. Finally look at my watch and, to my surprise, it is well past midnight (probably 3 or 4 a.m.). Having done it again, I head off to bed swearing to try to do things a little differently tomorrow.

So what I'm saying is, nothing will change in my life and nothing much ever will because that's what it is to be an 80+year old free of former commitments and with limited time, energy and wherewithal to do anything much beyond just the essentials for living to make it to another day of the same old routine. 

Sad part of it all is that there are days when it is all I can do to handle some of the essentials of the same old routine that I find myself confined to; but I am learning not to worry about it. Just do the best I can whenever I can.

Damn it though, I'm going to start to enjoy it all a lot more...Even if it kills me!

ABOUT THE GLORY OF GOD THE CREATOR OF ALL

A preamble

Who is God and how did he come to be? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those (me included) who like to think about the big questions.

Because I am so little qualified, perhaps I should not even pursue that question, let alone be so bold as to actually write about it. How else than am I to determine an answer to such an impossible question?

Like most issues in life I get answers by means of a probing, yet largely uneducated mind that is facilitated through the process of converting findings and thoughts to the written word and, in the end, attempting to make sense of it all in story form.

For Wrights Lane purposes I am ever cognizant of brevity and attention spans of my readers, but in this instance I worry that I will not be able to do justice to the serious subject matter. So bear with me dear reader as I attempt squeeze mega centuries of complicated creation into a three or four thousand word summary. I fully expect that more theologically learned friends will frown on my humble efforts.

I can tell you right now that this undertaking has been several days in the development stage and as I write, it may be another day or two before I arrive at satisfactory completed text.

Recognizing that God is genderless, I will refer to Him, He and His throughout this piece because he is cast as a father-like figure throughout the Scriptures. Otherwise, in lieu of repeating the word God over and over again, I would be at a loss as to what else to call (often two or three times in the same sentence) this supreme energy force that is beyond human description and perception.

So, "Who is God and how did he come to be?" The Biblical answer to that leading question is, God was not created. He is by nature the eternal God. He always was, is, and always will be. He did not work Himself up into a position to be God neither did He inherit the position from His parents, for He had no parents-no mother, no father. He has no beginning and will have no end.

The fact that God is eternal is stressed in the Bible when the psalmist wrote: "Even from everlasting to everlasting you are God"(Psalm 90:2). Moses records God saying: "For I lift my hand to heaven, and say, as I live forever..." (Deuteronomy 32:40).Therefore God is uncaused. This, of course, poses a problem, because we think that every affect has a cause and we assume God must also have a cause.

As a starting point, one must assume a first cause or else no cause whatsoever. If God is denied as always existing, then one must assume that something material has existed from all eternity. This material would have come about without a cause. Therefore our choice is between an intelligent being who is self-existent and lifeless matter.

Some might argue that these statements "beg the question" for they are assuming what they should be proving. They conveniently start with God but do not explain the how or why of His existence. But ultimately we must admit that there had to have been something in the beginning whether it be God or something else.

The starting point, again according to the Bible is God. God was in the beginning and everything stems from Him. This is not inconsistent with what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture nor is it inconsistent with our understanding about the origin of the universe.

It is significant that the Bible does BEGIN WITH GOD, which shows us the CENTRALITY of God: “In the beginning, God …”. If there is one thing the Bible tells us, right off the bat, it is that it is all about God; it is not all about us. Remember that!

While the Bible provides limited information regarding what God did before the creation of the universe, one thing is clear: God existed in perfect community as Father, Son, and Spirit from eternity past. The Bible begins with the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Clearly, God the Father existed long before the universe's creation, holding the power and wisdom to create and design all things.

The Holy Spirit also existed from eternity past. Genesis 1:2 is the first mention of the Spirit: "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." In Acts 5:3-4, Peter referred to the Holy Spirit as God. 

As God, the Holy Spirit is clearly eternal, existing from before the time of the universe's creation as well as from eternity past.

Jesus Christ also existed from eternity past as the second Person of the Triune God. John 1:1-3 teaches, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Colossians 1:16-17 affirms, "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Philosophically, some have argued that before the creation of the universe, space and time did not exist as we know it. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss what happened "when" there was no universe as time did not exist as we understand it.

However, the Bible does offer some insights regarding God's activities before the creation of the universe. In John 17:24 Jesus said, "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." Love existed before creation between God the Father and God the Son. They existed along with the Holy Spirit in perfect glory and unity.

In addition, Ephesians 1:4 notes, "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." God chose those who would believe in Him before the creation of the world. It is amazing to think that God thought of us by name, individually, before anything existed in our universe.

Titus 1:2 (NIV) also shares, "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time." Eternal life was planned before time began. God knew the end even before the beginning of creation.

While little is known about God's work before creation, it is clear God was active, all-knowing, and perfect in community, love, and glory as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:

"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? He wrote thus: 'Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place.' Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"

How then does God, acting before time began, get around the problem of His creation? There are two possible interpretations. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed.

Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason -- so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. God exists in multiple dimensions of time, as hard as it is to wrap our minds around the idea.

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction.

A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

What does science say about time? When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning at the moment of creation.

In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim -- that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time. Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

CONCLUSION: God had no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created.

All the more reason why we should be in awe of this Holy Spirit we call God and pay due homage for the blessings that have been bestowed upon us as appointed custodians of this remarkable world and all that within it is.

So again, we ask: Why did God create the world? And we answer with the Scriptures: God created the world for his glory. God did not create out of need. He did not create the world out of a deficiency that needed to be made up. He was not lonely. He created the world to put his glory on display that his people might know him, and love him.

And why did he create a world that would become like the one we live in today -- a world that fell into sin, a world that exchanged his glory for the glory of images? Why would he permit and guide and sustain such a world? And we answer: for the praise of the glory of the grace of God displayed supremely in the death of Jesus.

This means that the ultimate reason for all things is the communication of the glory of God’s grace for the happy praise of a redeemed multitude from every people and tongue and tribe and nation. All things are created and guided and sustained for the glory of God, which reaches its apex in the glory of his grace, which shines most brightly in Christ who was sacrificed on the cross so that we might live as forgiven people.

There...That's it. So overwhelming in retrospect.

I consider myself so miniscule. So inadequate. Just a drop in the bucket. Yet, like you my friend, I was born into this world capable of glorifying God, the creator of all things. Sadly, for a lot of us, there is precious little time left for fulfilment of that purpose.

In the end we will be replaced, for better or worse. And the world will continue as it has for untold centuries, for better or worse, according to God's will.

Meantime, I'm glad to have been able to take this small peek at something so miraculous -- and glorious. Oh what a privilege it is...

I leave you with a video by Esther Hicks which says it all. Truly God-inspired in my view. A perfect and complimentary ending for this post. Don't leave without watching it.

https://youtu.be/Gcj9ZgU5mV4