David Ewart

You will always have the poor with you ... but you will not always have me

Catherine talked with me this morning about what she was reading in Timothy Morton's, Being Ecological. The issue being discussed was how "we", the human species, need to act collectively even though we are so divided along so many fault lines, because it is "we" who are the cause of the climate crisis, not sea horses. This led me to wondering:

Do those of us who insist on the requirements for justice impede the work for effective climate action?

I re-listened to words from Mark 14:7 as spoken to me - not from Jesus but from a sea horse: "You will always have the poor with you ... but you will not always have me."

Jesus was right. The need for correcting injustice will never go away. And there will always be occasions when insisting on justice prevents doing what this moment is calling for.

It is increasingly clear to me that the past 50 years of climate justice action that I have been involved in have not accomplished the scale of responses that are needed. And were based on assumptions of timing and stability that no longer are true. We need to stop asking, "Is this just?" And start asking only question, "Will this eliminate the burning of coal, oil, and gas?" This is the question the sea horse needs an answer to. Because if we don't quickly get this right we will no longer have the sea horse with us.

David Ewart

 

The United Church of Canada Needs a Big Vision

What the United Church of Canada (UCCan) needs now is a Greta Thunberg approved vision of a plausible future for the planet.

Here’s what I think the UCCan can offer:

1. 100% commitment to zero carbon by 2030.
   This would apply not only to buildings, but also to all programs and activities including worship, meetings, travel, etc. It would also include active participation in existing climate crisis networks, political activism at all levels, boycotts and other economic pressures.
   
   
2. Multi-generational community.
   We have decades of experience creating and maintaining personal connections of caring and friendship that are open and inclusive across all categories of gender, race, age, ability, orientation, culture, etc. We also have firsthand experience of learning to apologize and what it takes to make amends and seek reconciliation. We have gained understandings of the shapes of personal well-being and life-giving relationships.
   
   
3. A big story.
   Being rooted in a multi-thousand-year story helps give perspective to present experiences. We are not the first generation to fear there is no plausible future. Our big story helps us to avoid fear-mongering and false-hopes.
   
   
4. Spiritual practices.
   Dealing with the pressures of everyday life, work, and family as well as global issues of the climate, war, and the economy can be a recipe for toxic stress and anxiety. We have experience with practices that help one stay centred and connected.
   
   
5. A church that isn’t religious.
   The UCCan locates itself within the globally diverse and conflicted collective of those who look to Jesus of Nazareth. Yet in our looking to Jesus, we do not see a religion. We see a way of being; a way of living fully and truly. We see a call to live justly and in right relations with all beings. We are not interested in proving anything to anyone. But we do want the way the world works to be fair for all.

David Ewart

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials. Please acknowledge the source as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca"

Spirit Given Gifts

Spirit given gifts are special abilities that God gives to every Christian
to be used cooperatively for the strengthening of the Body of Christ
so that it might better fulfill God's purposes.

Learning what our Gifts are - and are not - can bring clarity of purpose and meaning for our lives.

Knowing what our gifts are not can ease feelings of failure and frustration. Acknowledging our limitations and seeking support from others who have gifts we do not have frees us to focus on our strengths, on the gifts we do have.

Going where our gifts are takes us to the place where the giver of those gifts, God, is closest to us in our lives.

Our skills may not be our gifts. When we are using our gifts, we may end the day feeling tired, but we will also feel deeply satisfied. But if our skills are not also our gifts, then we will simply end the day feeling tired and drained.

This Descriptions Booklet - PDF and Questionnaire Booklet - PDF will help you begin to identify your Spirit Given Gifts.

A Prayer about Prayer

Gracious Love,
in whom we live and move and have our being,

Teach us how to pray as you would have us pray:
bring to mind what you would have us remember, and
give us the words to pray for what is needed.

Help us to feel your presence which is always with us.

Help us to trust that the words we use to offer our gratitudes and concerns are adequate,
and help us to trust that if we have no words,
and can only offer groans, or silence, or smiles
that your Spirit lifts these to you in all of their fulness.

Help us to trust that we feel called to pray, so that
we can tell you what is in our hearts and minds; and,
help us to trust that you also call us to pray so that
your Spirit moving within us
helps us to see as you see; to love as you love;
giving us the words to say what needs to be made real for the good of all.

Help us to trust that we are not the only one offering the prayers that are needed this day.
Help us to feel the presence of others in this room and across this land
who are also praying. Lifting up gratitudes; lifting up concerns.
Help us to feel our connection as part of the whole – so much larger than each of us alone.

Help us to trust that even before we began to pray,
you are already fully present seeking to make real
the responses that are needed to all the prayers we offer.

Grant us this day that our prayers are worthy of your goodness and your generosity.
That we have prayed big enough; that no one and nothing has been left out.

Grant us this day whatever we need to be able to live the lives that are the responses to our prayers.

Gracious one, we are grateful to you that we are not the first ones, nor the only ones, praying today.
We come before you as inheritors of a long tradition.
Over so many centuries, in so many languages, in so many ways,
people gather in community to pray.
In particular, we here today recall how many times, and in how many places,
people have gathered and shared with one voice
the prayer that Jesus teaches his followers to say …

Our Brother’s Prayer

Holy One, Holy Three
In whom we are one,

Fill our world with your wonder.

May the loving right-relations that you eternally are,
Be how we are here on earth.

May all living beings receive from their labour
All that is needed for the wellbeing of all.

Forgive us the harm our ideas and actions do,
As we receive healing from those wounded by
our stories, our laws, and our commerce.

Save us from trials that overwhelm,
And let us not be tricked into believing lies.

For the power and the glory of the kin_ship of all living things
Abide in you, now and for ever.

May it be so.

----------------

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials.
Please credit the source as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca, August 22, 2023".

Why I Am Almost an Atheist - Take 2

I have abandoned my first take on this post.

For one thing, there are at least as many ways to be an atheist as there are to be a Scottish Presbyterian. And my initiative for writing is not to argue with atheism - nor Presbyterianism - in all their many forms. My goad is to write about what still nags at the "faith" I seem to still have.

I am also today weighed down by the news of the slaughter of 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School, Uvalde, Texas.

What, in the name of a trustworthy, good, God can one say? I wonder how I would re-present Jesus at any of these funerals. What could one say that wouldn't be offensive; not be off the mark. (Learning how not to be like Job's friends is a start.)

Let's begin by remembering that Christians do not believe in God. Christians do not believe in a singularity; they believe in a Community; a foundational Threesome that underlies and infuses all realities. If there is a "god", that "god" is relationship; not a separate, single, self.

And, if there is a "god" who is relationship, Christians assert that this relationship is epitomized by love. Love that holds nothing back. Love that is totally committed to the good of the other. Love that gives with no strings attached. Love that has no pre-conditions. Love that never forgets; never looses attention; never looks away; never falls asleep. Love that is all in, everywhere, all the time. Love that has all the power that love can have. Love that aches to be loved back; to be seen; to be known. Love that is not coercive.

These are relatively easy words to write as I sit at peace and comfort at my desk. And relatively easy to proclaim following a long life, well lived. But what does one write following young lives blown apart by several hundred rounds of assault rifle ammunition?

That they are held in the eternal memory of God? Personally, I am not comforted by the thought that the best that Love can do is hold forever the last moments of pain and terror that these children experienced.

I wonder how much of our theological reflection is fatally flawed by the race, class, and gender of those who have the luxury of the time, money, and education to safely and securely ponder deep thoughts?

For example. Lure. I like Process Theology's choice of "lure" as a way to describe how Love is present in each moment of concrescence, in each moment of coming-into-being. An attraction; not a law. "Lure" presumes, no, requires the freedom and agency and choice of the other in their responses. But I also wonder if "lure" isn't a word choice that arises from a privileged life experience of freedom and agency and choice. Would "lure" be the word choice arising from a life experience of oppression, racism, sexism, or grinding poverty? Is "lure" the best that Love can offer while the bullets are flying in the classrooms of Robb Elementary? And frankly, I am not confident that "lure" is going to get us where we need to be with climate justice, for example. Or Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association for two more. Or Pierre Poilievre to bring it closer to home.

What I am looking for is a word choice that is more proactive. More declarative. More pissed off. More sad. More worried. Still not coercive. Still not hectoring. Still unshakably, inescapably relational. But way more explicitly taking a stand for what is good and fair and just. Way more calling out all the entrenched structures of power and privilege that are killing our planet and harming the lives and dignity of people right here, and all over the earth.

        What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? NOW!
        #MeToo!
        #BlackLivesMatter!
        #GoFuckYourselfPutin

That's the tone of voice; that's the urgency I am looking for.

I am also somewhat puzzled by the assumption that process and relationality end with death. I am more inclined to go with what John, not John Cobb - the other John - writes about this:

        They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
        the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.
        For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
        and he will guide them to springs of living water;
        and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.
        Revelation 7:17-18

In John's vision we don't just die and Boom! That's it. Held forever in the memory of God. End of story. Full stop.

No, in John's vision, the blows of oppression: hunger, thirst, tears, scorching heat as peasant labourers which our bodies bore here on earth - these all are ended, healed, transformed. We are guided - not lured - to springs of living water. We are guided - not lured - into the fullness of the relationship that is our origin, our ground of being, and our end.

I trust that this is the experience of the children and teachers of Robb Elementary. 

Their killing and the NRA lead me toward atheism. The unspeakable dearness of their lives - and the unfinished right relationship their deaths demand - leave me still trusting.

Returning Home

There have been several days of hot wind now. Green grass is beginning to show through, and the trees are fattening. We're only just into spring, and yet this is summer weather. Each season seems to contain within it a foretaste of the one to come. Blurring the boundaries of times and seasons.

And there on top of the TV amid the flowers like a shrine is Taylor's picture. Grandchild. Three years old, who died of leukemia last Friday. In the picture they seem plump and healthy, but the toque is probably meant to hide hair missing from the chemicals and radiation. This is a snapshot of child-life dying.

Tomorrow is the second Sunday after Easter. The Gospel is John. Christ's appearance to the disciples and to Thomas. Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe. --- You are the Lord of the living and of the dead. Are you also the Lord of this manner of dying? ("We prayed that they would go. They cried all the time. The staff gave them morphine every few hours to kill the pain. But they only screamed louder whenever they saw them coming. We prayed that they would go. The last day was the hardest. I'll never forget the last day.") You say that we are blessed to believe without seeing. That is not the problem. The problem is: Are you asking of us that we should see and touch this small morphine stunned body and also believe?

Returning home various kinds of hawks kite the wind. And there are also calves.

David Ewart.     Kincaid, SK.     April 8, 1978.
Note: Identifying details have been changed to protect privacy.

When We Pray for Bread

6 Meditations for Communion

When we pray for bread¹ …
we pray for what is concrete.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for food.
Food is abstract, general, removed.
Bread is concrete, specific, particular.
So do not be vague or obscure in our prayers.
To pray for bread is to pray for what is real and substantial.
Pray that we will be as real as bread is real.

When we pray for bread …
we pray for what is basic.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for cake.
Cake is superfluous, peripheral, unnecessary.
Bread is fundamental, central; essential.
So do not be elaborate or excessive in our prayers.
To pray for bread is to pray for the heart of the matter.
To pray for bread is to pray that we will be as nourishing of life as bread is.

When we pray for bread …
we pray for what is common.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for caviar.
Caviar is costly and privileged.
Bread is affordable and available.
So do not be arrogant or proud in our prayers.
To pray for bread is to pray to share in the fate of common people.
To pray for bread is to pray that we will be as ordinary as bread is.

When we pray for bread …
we pray for what is manufactured.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for manna.
Manna falls down heaven, whole and complete.
Bread is the product of the living earth and human labour.
So do not be privileged and pie-in-the-sky in our prayers.
To pray for bread is to pray for the wellbeing of the earth, of farmers, of millers, of bakers, of marketers.
To pray for bread is to pray that we will be as collective as bread is.

When we pray for daily bread …
we pray for what is immediate.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for tomorrow’s bread.
Tomorrow is another day.
Daily is right here, right now.
So do not pray for possibly, one day, maybe.
To pray for daily bread is to pray for what is needed now.
To pray for daily bread is to pray that we will be as fully in the present as bread is.

When we pray for daily bread …
we pray for what is ongoing.
Jesus did not invite us to pray for bread for a lifetime.
Bread for a lifetime seeks security against the future.
Daily bread is ongoing, taking each day as it comes.
So do not pray for protection against what the future might bring.
To pray for daily bread is to pray for the means to deal with each day as it comes.
To pray for daily bread is to pray that we will be as resourceful as bread is.

 

Click here for a PDF copy of this post.

_____________________________________

¹ I am aware of the cultural problems with using “bread” as a global food, and of the health concerns for many. I trust that praying, for example, “that we will be as nourishing of life as bread is” will provoke conversations about these limitations and dangers; and push communities to image concrete ways to meet these challenges.

_____________________________________

David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca, 2020. Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided the source is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

Commencement 2020

I’m not sure that being 75 entitles me to sobriquet of “wise elder,” but having been invited to offer Commencement thoughts to the graduating classes of 2020 here they are.

The Class of 2020!

What a great year to be graduating. You will be the class with 20-20 vision; 20-20 hindsight.

But. And this is the most important thing I will say to you. You will never be the class of 20-20 nostalgia.

You will never be the class to put on rosy coloured, false memories, of “Those were the days!”

Nostalgia is the enemy of the better. It is the enemy of clarity. It is the enemy of wisdom.

And right now, the planet desperately needs an entire cohort of wisdom, clarity, and discernment of the “better.”

But. And this is the other most important thing I will say to you. You are the cohort who are embedding in your minds, hearts, flesh, and bones the blessings and banes of “novelty.”

Novelty is the engine of creativity; of transformation; of healing and reconciliation. It is the never-before-this-new-possibility. It is the engine of evolution. It is why we are all here in this beautiful, wonderfully diverse world. Never wish that novelty would cease. Embrace it.

But. And this is one more most important thing I will say to you. Recognize that novelty requires learning how to learn as you go. And that means novelty will always be messy. Will always mean failures. Will always mean uncertainty, anxiety, doubting, and second guessing. Will always mean real losses; real lost opportunities; real endings of dreams; real losses of life, income, and careers. Novelty is not always nice.

But. And this is the last most important thing I will say to you. As an elder, I ask you today to burn your degrees. Burn the thought that you have graduated. Never stop studying; never stop learning. Never stop asking, “What is REALLY going on?” Never stop asking, “Am I asking the right questions?” Because if you don’t ask the right questions, you will end up trying to solve the wrong problems. Look for trends. Wonder “How will the work I am doing now be changed when the world no longer works the way it does right now?” (Because the world is always ceasing to work the way it does right now. That is what novelty means; that is what evolution means.)

But. And this really is the last most important thing I will say to you. Trust that in spite of human stupidity, greed, and corruption we humans – and that includes you – are still part of the amazing evolution of the entire cosmos. The creative drive towards increased beauty, intensity, and harmony. Don’t stop finding love. Don’t stop making love. Don’t stop keeping friends and allies. Stay juicy. Stay joyous. Stay safe. And be kind.

David Ewart,
May 4, 2020.

Proportional Representation: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

The 2019 Canada Federal election is over, and it is time to once more rant on social media about how unfair the current election system is.

If you have a system with more than two parties, then a system where the candidate who gets the most votes is the winner often results in candidates winning with less than 50% of the votes cast - and too often with less than a third of the votes cast (which means the person elected is actually opposed by two-thirds of voters). No wonder there is so much dissatisfaction and dis-trust of politics and politicians.

And nationally, the number of candidates each party elects often bears no relationship to the total number of votes for that party. On first glance, this is patently unfair. And the 2019 election is no exception. Take a look at this screen grab from the CBC News election results.

CBC News

The Conservatives had more votes but fewer seats than the Liberals! Unfair! And look at the New Democrat who had double the votes of the Bloc Quebecois but fewer seats! Unfair! And the Green had almost as many votes as the Bloc, but only 3 seats compared with the Bloc's 32! Unfair!

If the 338 federal parliament seats had been distributed by Proportional Representation (where seats are proportional to total votes received for each party), then the seat count would have been:

•    Liberal - 112 (and not 157)
•     Conservative - 117 (and not 121)
•     Bloc - 26 (and not 32)
•     New Democrat - 54 (and not 24)
•     Green - 22 (and not 3)
•     Independent - 1 (which is what happened!)
•     People's Party - 5 (and not 0)
•     Other - 1 (and not 0)

As can be seen, Proportional Representation gives the Conservatives their due share of the most seats, but it also reduces the seats they won under the current system. The Liberals lose the most seats. And the New Democrats and Greens significantly increase their number of seats. No wonder New Democrat and Green supporters are often the strongest advocates for voting reform. And no wonder Liberals and Conservatives are the most luke-warm about voting reform.

The problem with simply calculating seat count based on total federal votes received is that it completely ignores regional differences. A Conservative vote in Calgary, Alberta is likely made for very different reasons than one in Milton, Ontario. Even Conservatives in Calgary and Edmonton do not always see eye to eye. The federal vote total completely blurs regional differences; urban / rural differences; North / South and East / West and Atlantic / Pacific differences; resource / commercial / manufacturing / agriculture / service / arts differences; local issues and candidates; etc.; etc.

Another problem with using the federal total votes to assess the "fairness" of any electoral system is that it basically says all the votes over 50%+1 that the Conservative candidates in Alberta and Saskatchewan received should somehow be transferred to the Toronto 905 and elect Conservatives there. That's the only way "every vote counts" can actually count. The fact that Alberta and Saskatchewan "over voted" for Conservatives should not meddle in the closer votes that happened elsewhere.

So let's agree to scrap using the federal vote totals as THE criteria for determining "fairness." And that means, let's not get in a knot if any new system still means the seats won by each party does not exactly align with the percentage of total votes cast.

Let's also examine the slogan "every vote counts." The problem with democracy is that decisions get made by majority vote - usually 50% plus 1 of votes cast. That is, the fundamental premise is that while all votes are counted, it not the case that "every vote counts." Only the votes in the majority "count" in the sense of being decisive. It is not unfair that those who voted in the minority did not get their way, were not included. That's how democracy works. So there is no democratic system where those who votes are in the minority are decisive. Losers have to live with losing. And try to figure out how to be more persuasive so as to eventually gain majority support. There is no electoral system that will eliminate this fundamental majority-vote decision making process in a democracy.

So let's agree to scrap "every vote counts" as the slogan for electoral reform, and agree that while a democracy needs to have a healthy diversity of views, yet when decisions are made, it is the majority that will count; the majority that will be decisive.

Here's the thing about elections. Elections are not opinion polls. Elections are decisions. And that means those in the minority will not be decisive, will not "count." In every election as many as 49% of voters will not get their way. That's the way democracy works.

Now here's the thing.

All the groups that email me about proportional representation do not use proportional representation for their own internal elections.

Why is that? Because if they can't reach consensus, they use majority voting. If there are more than one candidates for a position, they hold a series of elections, eliminating the lowest person each time, until one person gets the majority of votes cast.

And no political party uses First-Past-The-Post for their internal elections.

Why is that? Because the democratic tradition is to make decisions by majority votes. So, they also use successive ballots until one candidate is supported by the majority.

The problem with our current electoral system is not that every vote doesn't count. All votes are counted. The problem is that candidates get elected without receiving the majority of votes cast. And there is no process for dropping the lowest candidate and re-voting until one candidate does receive the majority.

Conducting multiple rounds of voting is not a viable option. But simply asking voters to rank their preferences on a single ballot is. That is, instead of simply marking an "X" beside only one candidate, voters should be asked to mark a "1" beside their first choice; a "2" beside their second choice; and so on. It is then a fairly simply process to keep eliminating the lowest candidates and transferring their ballots to the marked second choice (and third, fourth, etc.) to determine which candidate has the overall majority support.

Majority voting is what democracies do. Let's let all voters have that choice as well.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca 

United But NOT Uniform

We may be a United Church, but we are definitely not a uniform church. In 2011, there were about 3,000 congregations: 1,500 were single-point pastoral charges, and 1,500 were part of 659 multiple-point pastoral charges.

If the United Church were uniform, one would expect to find that the people and financial resources of single-point pastoral charges would equal multiple-point pastoral charges.

In the chart, the two blue bars are the single-point pastoral charges. The light blue bar shows the 300 congregations with the highest average worship attendance, while the dark blue bar represents the remaining 1,200 single-point charges. The orange bar represents all 1,500 multiple-point congregations.

The total money raised by the light blue group is 65 percent higher than the total for all multiple-point pastoral charges combined. In fact, in almost every Year Book measurement, the top 300 congregations exceed the total of the multiple-point pastoral charges.

Make no mistake: a congregation in the top 300 is not better than a multiple-point congregation. Each will have its own strengths and challenges — but very different strengths and very different challenges.

Given the magnitude of the differences, I wonder if we don’t need to imagine ourselves, not as a United Church, but as a Trinitarian Church — one in three and three in one: (1) large single-point pastoral charges; (2) medium and small single-point pastoral charges; and (3) multiple-point pastoral charges.

I wonder if we have the capacity to imagine different ways of being church for each grouping? And to provide different resources and supports for each of them?

Whatever else can be made of this data, it is certainly clear that there is no such thing as a “typical” United Church congregation. Whenever we talk about congregations, we need to be very clear just what sort of congregation we are imagining.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

This "Reality Check" column first appeared in the March 2014 issue of the United Church Observer,
http://www.ucobserver.org/opinion/2014/03/reality_check.

Click here for an easy to email or print Adobe PDF version of this post.