Conservative Majority

On Monday, May 2, Canadians went to the polls and exercised their democratic right to vote. While the Conservative majority is not a huge surprise, this election will still go down in history as significant. The demise of the Bloc Quebecois, including its leader Gilles Duceppe, and the crushing defeat of Michael Ignatieff were not predicted by any of the pundits. Neither was the enormous success of Jack Layton and the NDP, especially in Quebec.

In the 1990's, Jean Chrétien was able to win three back to back majorities because of the division of the right wing vote, first between the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives, and later between the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. Since the right wing parties have been able to combine into the Conservative Party, they have managed to first stave off a Liberal majority, and then win two back to back minorities. In the latest election we have come full circle with the left of center vote being divided allowing the Conservatives a majority. It will be difficult to defeat the Tories as long as the left of center is split. Are we moving to a two party system comparable to the United States? Time will tell.

Another interesting angle to the election results is the success of the NDP, especially in Quebec. The 42 NDP seats outside of Quebec is a significant victory too, but only because it's more than the Liberals total of 34 seats. Ed Broadbent was able to win over forty two seats with the NDP in the 1988 election, and that was without any seats in Quebec, so Jack Layton’s numbers outside of Quebec are not without precedent.

While it would be easy to give Jack Layton all the credit for the destruction of the Bloc Quebecois, one has to ask why Quebec is moving towards federalism at a time in history when Stephen Harper is Prime Minister. They might not want to vote for him, but they do not seem to have a problem being in a nation that he is leading.

With his new majority government, and a majority of Quebec MPs being NDP, Stephen Harper should move quickly put to health care reform on the agenda. It's time for Canadians to be able to opt out of the public system and go to a private clinic in Canada, instead of having to endure long wait times or travel to a clinic in the USA. With Quebec already being the province with the most private clinics, it would be difficult for Jack Layton to argue forcefully against a two-tiered system. It is time for the public system to endure some competition. Harper should strike while the iron is hot.

Regardless of what is on the political agenda, I think most Canadians are happy that the next election is at least four years away and that we should have a stable government after more than 7 years of minority governments.

How Now Shall We Vote?

Do you think that society could be transformed if we only had the right government? My last blog touched on the difference between neo-Kuperian doctrine, and the Two-Kingdom doctrine that many Lutherans and Reformed Christians hold to. Basically the Two-Kingdom doctrine holds that while God rules over everything in this world, he does not rule over everything through his church. Therefore, we cannot force non-Christians to live up to the same standards as Christians. Neo-Kuperians believe that Lordship of Christ needs to be manifest in every area of life, including politics, in order to transform the culture.

But how does this debate apply to the current election campaign going on in Canada? Christians need to decide whether to vote for the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) or for one of the mainline parties. The decision becomes even more complicated when the candidate from a mainland party is a confessing Christian. If we decide to vote for the Conservatives are we sacrificing our principles and giving in to pragmatism? If you accept the Two-Kingdom approach you would be reluctant to use politics and earthly government to promote the Christian faith as you would see that as the churches role. Does that mean that a vote for the CHP would be more in line with a neo-Kuyperian view? Not necessarily, since a perusal of the CHP platform illustrates that they have many policy ideas that even many non-Christians would find workable. In addition the CHP purposely has no connection to any particular denomination and that implies that its goal is to promote good government and leave the preaching of the gospel to the church.

Another question to consider in this debate is whether it is advisable or even possible to try to impose Christian ethics to civil life. If most of the citizens of a country are not Christian, will we ever be able to elect a government which operates on Christian principles, and if we do, would it be able to impose its ethical standards on the citizens of the country? Moral improvement will only happen if it is worked from the bottom up, rather than imposed from above, unless above is heaven itself. The kind of moral improvement that God desires, is a reaction of thankfulness for salvation through our Saviour, Jesus the Christ, and is worked in through the Holy Spirit, not through good government, but through His Church.

Regardless how we vote we need to remember that earthly government is necessary because of sin, in the same way that we have locks on our doors because of sin. Being a locksmith is an acceptable job for a Christian, and we can even glorify God by doing it well, but it would be difficult to transform society by doing it, and in eternity we will have no use for it.

The Role of the Church in Society

If, as Abraham Kuyper pointed out, every square inch of this world belongs to Christ, does it follow that the church should be involved in every sphere of life? This is an especially important question as Christians in Canada consider who to vote for in the upcoming Federal election on May 2, 2011. I believe the answer is both “no” and “yes”.

I believe the answer is “no” because the church as an organization has been mandated by God to focus on the Great Commission found in Matthew 28. History has shown that when the church, as an organization, starts to focus on areas such as politics, culture, and education it does so at the expense of its God given mandate. This view, of limiting the church to ecclesiastical matters, is expressed well in the Martin Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, which was also espoused by John Calvin.

Some Reformed Christians who disagree with the Two Kingdom approach, such as neo-Kuyperians, espouse that Christians ought to work hard to make the world a more God honouring place. For a good discussion of the debate between the Two Kingdom doctrine and the ideas of the neo-Kuyperians see Kevin deYoung’s blog, DeYoung, Restless and Reformed. Personally, I think that the differences between these two views is a false dilemma, and that they are not that far apart. I agree with the neo-Kuyperians that the church ought to say “yes” to involvement in all areas of life, but not under the authority of a consistory or even classis or synod. Individual Christians should band together with other Christians, or even non-Christians, to transform society.

Nevertheless, the Church as an organization has been mandated by Christ to focus on the announcement of the gospel as Dr. Michael Horton, from Westminster Theological Seminary, points out in the video below.

Responsible Government

Since Stephen Harper and the Conservatives lost a vote of non-confidence on Friday March 25, Canadians will be going to the polls on May 2, 2011. In Canada the executive branch of government must have the approval of the legislative branch of government in order to stay in power. This is known as Responsible Government, and its development in British North America (BNA) is an interesting story.

It started when Britain took control of Quebec away from France in the Seven Years War. Soon after that time Britain was having difficulties with its American colonies to the south concerning taxes, and so used the Quebec Act to secure the loyalty of the residents of Quebec. In the Quebec Act, the French were not given democracy, but were given language and religious freedom. But then after the American Revolution, many of those who had remained loyal to Great Britain during the Revolutionary War moved to Quebec. The Loyalists posed a problem for the British authorities since they spoke English, were not Catholic, and were used to the democracy they had enjoyed in the American colonies. So in the Constitutional Act of 1791 the British divided Quebec into two colonies, Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec), and provided each colony with an elected assembly.

It would appear that democracy had arrived in BNA but that was not the case. Britain believed that the American colonies had rebelled because they had had too much freedom, and thus did not want to make the same mistake in BNA. At the same time they needed to placate the Loyalists who were used to the elected assemblies of the 13 American colonies. So Britain provided elected assemblies in the Canadas, but in essence all real power was in the hands of the governor and his appointed councils who were unelected officials, and could veto any law proposed by the elected assembly. Thus the Constitutional Act of 1791 gave the appearance of democracy but real power was in the hands of a small group of people. In Upper Canada this group became known as the Family Compact, because of the intermarriage of its members. A similar group in Lower Canada was known as the Chateau Clique.

By the 1830s many colonists in both Upper and Lower Canada were frustrated that the Family Compact and the Chateau Clique held all the power. While most colonists did not approve of rebellion some radicals in both Canadas did openly rebel in 1837. These rebellions were easily put down but did cause the British government to take notice, so in 1838 they sent Lord Durham, who had fought for liberal reforms in Britain, to Canada to head an inquiry. He concluded that the rebellions, at least in Upper Canada, were the result of too much power in the hands of the Family Compact and not enough in the hand of the colonists. He proposed that Responsible Government, already practiced in Britain be introduced in Canada.

In order to understand how Responsible Government works one needs to first understand the different branches of government. In the evolution of government in Britain, power came to be divided into three branches, the executive branch which does the day to day ruling, the legislative branch which passes laws and holds the purse strings and the judicial branch which enforces the laws. Historically, the King was the executive branch and with his appointed advisers would rule the country. Parliament was the legislative branch and was called upon to pass laws and okay taxes. In the 18^th century the Prime Minister, who was a Member of Parliament began to take on many of the responsibilities of the King. He would choose his cabinet members from the Parliament as well. So it came to be that the executive branch became responsible to the legislative branch, and had to have its confidence, in order to stay in power.

Durham’s recommendation took a decade to come to pass, but ever since then the executive branch of government is selected from those who have a seat in the legislative branch and as such must have its confidence. On Friday, March 25, Stephen Harper lost that confidence. While most of us feel an election at this time is unnecessary, I’m sure that we appreciate that we are not ruled by an oligarchy like the Family Compact.

Are You Ready?

Please watch this video clip before you read the blog. Ask yourself if you agree with it's message.

This past week the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent potential meltdown at the nuclear facility, has dominated the news. Events such as these always bring out the doomsayers and those who suggest that according to Jesus Christ’s own words, the world will soon end. Like the video above, it is tempting to start predicting that the end is near. One person, at the end of a story I recently read on Yahoo! News, felt he should use the comment forum to warn the readers that the world was about to end, and therefore they should repent. He appealed to the Olivet discourse, which can be found in three of the gospels, including Matthew. But is Jesus really teaching that war and natural disasters are signs that the end is near? In Matthew 24: 1-14 Jesus teaches the following:

Matthew 24: 1-14 (NIV)

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times

 ¹ Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ² “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

 ³ As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

 ⁴ Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. ⁵ For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. ⁶ You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁷ Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸ All these are the beginning of birth pains.

   ⁹ “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰ At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹ and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹² Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³ but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴ And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

The first thing you notice, from a close reading of the passage, is that Christ is telling his followers not to be alarmed by war, famines, and earthquakes. In fact, if Christ was telling us that we should expect his return soon after these kinds of events, then we would have to call him a liar. After all, these kinds of events have happened throughout 2000 years of history, but the world has not ended.

Christ is telling us what must happen before the end comes--but it is not wars, famines, earthquakes or other types of disasters. In verse 14 he tells us that he will not return until the gospel has been preached to all who must hear it. Christ will not return until he has gathered in all of his sheep. What a comfort, that we as Christ’s sheep, do not need to be alarmed about his return, but instead are told that God is patient with his sheep, ensuring that they do repent before he returns.

Of course, the call to repentance is still necessary, although I wonder if the comments section of an internet news story is the proper forum? In fact, the call to repentance is much more urgent than those making the apocalypse comments suggest, since each one of us is only a heartbeat away from meeting our maker. The next corner in the road could bring a head on collision, so the need for repentance is much more immediate than concern about when Christ will return, wouldn't you think? Thankfully, God is in control of all the events of our lives, and he will keep his sheep safe in both life and death. And yet, he calls us to repent and be prepared. Are you ready?

Smart Phone Technology In The Classroom?

Technological changes have always affected the classroom. For example, in my own career I have used films, video tapes, DVDs and now I play videos over the projector from a netbook computer. Every couple of years we get a new photocopier which has lots of new features. Also blackboards, gave way to overheads, which have since been replaced by power point projectors and even, in some classrooms interactive white boards, like a Smart Board. But all these technological changes were teacher oriented and designed to improve the learning for the whole class. The satchel of student’s tools, however, has remained fairly static. Paper, binders, pens and textbooks have been around for generations. Computers are used in school, but mainly for specific technology courses, or to work on projects. We have not yet reached the point where students, at least at the primary and secondary level, come to class with a notebook computer. And yet there is a technological tool, which is not part of the lessons, but is nonetheless impacting the classroom.  How do we deal with these pervasive, handy, cool and powerful tools known as smart phones?

The approach in most schools today is to ban cell phones from the classroom. They are considered, at best, a distraction from the lesson and, at worst, a high-tech way to cheat. But trying to separate students from their phones is a challenge, partly because of their size, and partly because they have become a lifeline for students. Adults, too, find these little machines very handy and also have trouble putting them away. I have to confess that at times during a meeting, I read a text message, and shot off a quick reply, and I have seen other adults do this as well. Generally in these instances its use has not been at all disruptive. In fact, it can be argued that the cell phone often allows people to be more productive, especially when it allows them to be in two places at once. In these cases the cell phone is being used as a tool that helps you get the job done or allows you to multi-task. But when we start pulling out our phones during family devotions, concerts, or church services we may need to reassess our motives and perhaps join the local “cell phone-aholic” anonymous chapter. Most educators would argue that the classroom is another setting in which cell phones are hugely counter-productive, as students do not need another distraction.

If students could be trusted to limit the social networking in the classroom setting then smart phones could become crucial to education. Smart phones and other such devices could be used in the classroom to enhance the learning by making information instantly available. But in the way education is typically dispensed, is it difficult to get students to limit their use to educational activities only. Perhaps the real problem is not the cell phone but the way that school is typically set up. Maybe schools need to be set up more like a work environment where tools like smart phones and notebook computers are seamlessly integrated into the process, where teachers are more like consultants than instructors.

I wonder where the, cell phones in schools, debate is headed? Will the government start to allow schools to set up cell phone jammers, or will students be required to turn in there cell phone at the door when they arrive in the morning? Or perhaps it will just continue to be another source of disruption in the classroom? Or maybe, it is such a huge shift in technology that it will force schools into a new paradigm of learning? At the very least the issue is not going away.

Medium Or Message?

What is more important, the medium or the message? In today’s world it would seem that how you say it is much more important than what you say. In fact, in today’s relativist world where there is no such thing as absolute truth, what you say is irrelevant, but how you say it is everything. Modern communicators like Lady Gaga, with her over the top theatrical performances, are a case in point. To the modern person, the art of persuasion becomes everything, despite the fact that there is really nothing of ultimate importance to communicate.

This concept is not new. In fact, this very debate raged in ancient Greece between the Sophists and Socrates. One famous Sophist was Gorgias who introduced radical scepticism. R.C. Sproul, (2000) in his book The Consequences of Ideas, says about Gorgias,

He turned his back on philosophy and practiced rhetoric instead. This discipline focused on the art of persuasion in public discourse. The goal of rhetoric was not to proclaim truth but to achieve practical aims by persuasion. Rhetoric in this sense functioned in antiquity as Madison Avenue does today (p. 28).

Socrates, however, realized that civilization could not ultimately withstand the abandonment of the pursuit of truth. Sproul says,

Socrates was no more ready to abandon the quest for truth than to stand back and watch civilization crumble. Some have argued that in his era Socrates was the savior of Western civilization. He realized that knowledge and virtue are inseparable-so much so that virtue could be defined as right knowledge (p. 30-31).

So that leaves us with two questions. First of all can today’s civilization withstand the abandonment of absolute truth? What good is our communication, no matter how well we say it, if we are not actually saying anything? The only statement of truth that many modern communicators today are willing to make is that, “Truth does not exist.” If that is your only message than how you say it, is all you have.

Secondly, should we abandon rhetoric and the art of persuasion? Do we only need the prophets and not the artists? Ignoring the artists would be as foolish as today’s tendency of ignoring the prophets. Without a medium the message can not be communicated, and without the message there is no point to communication. Will someone like Socrates stand up for truth and save modern civilization, or will we have to wait to rebuild civilization on the ruins of modern society? Whatever the answer to that question is for this temporal world, we Christians know that ultimately the truth will set us free, and that Jesus Christ is that truth.

References

Sproul, R. C. (2000). The consequences of ideas: understanding the concepts that shaped our world.

Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.