Reflections on Debating Peter Singer, Part 7, by Stephanie Gray Connors

God

Although Peter Singer and I argued our positions from non-sectarian perspectives, I couldn’t help but feel, after the debate was done, that something—Someone—was missing.

Peter is known for being an atheist, and in a conversation with Andy Bannister he points to the existence of suffering in the world as being proof of the non-existence of God.  Otherwise, he asks, how could an all-powerful, all-loving God not intervene to stop the suffering in the world?

A whole other debate would need to be had on this topic, and I point readers to the insights of philosopher Peter Kreeft as a great place for in-depth reflections on the question of God’s existence.  I would, however, like to share these few thoughts:

First, if the presence of evil in the world is a sign God doesn’t exist, how do we explain the presence of good in the world?  Couldn’t we say that the presence of good is a sign of God, and the presence of evil is a sign of an arch enemy of God, namely Satan?  As we see in The Lord of the Rings or The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, these forces of good and evil fight against each other and do battle, but the good eventually wins. 

  Second, God has intervened to stop the suffering in the world—He sent His son Jesus to take on the punishment of our sins for us.  A world of eternal life awaits we who choose it and that world is free of suffering and will have no more tears.  Why hasn’t that world come yet?  Why hasn’t the suffering on earth ended already?  I don’t have an answer for that but I do have an explanation for my ignorance: I am a mere human and I don’t know it all.  Just as a child simply cannot comprehend everything her parent does, I do not have the capability, with my limited nature, to comprehend everything God does.  I am not all-knowing and not all-seeing, but God is.  And because He is all-good, then I trust Him when I don’t understand (just as children ought to do with their loving parents).  As mentioned above, Peter would cite the ongoing presence of evil as a sign God cannot be all good.  But not everyone with that observation comes to that conclusion.

  Take, for example, an article Peter wrote in 2011 about the death penalty.  In particular, he commented on the possibility that some people who are given the death penalty may be innocent.  He cited the story of Michael Morton who was unjustly incarcerated for 25 years for a murder he didn’t commit.  I don’t know how much Peter has looked into Michael’s story beyond the bare facts, but I have studied Michael’s experience extensively, speaking and writing about it on various occasions.  Michael suffered brutally, not only losing his wife to murder, not only being put in prison for a crime someone else committed, not only being deprived of raising his only son, but he endured more than two decades of lost freedom and horrific conditions in jail.  If anyone could use the presence of suffering as grounds to say God doesn’t exist, it could be Michael. And yet, Michael doesn’t.  In fact, he does just the opposite.  In his memoir he writes, “I know three, little, simple things.  One, God exists.  Two, He is wise.  And three, He loves me.”

  When I think of Michael’s story as it relates to God, I imagine the following: What if it didn’t take 25 years to find the actual murderer of Michael’s wife?  What if the guilty man was found within days?  What if there had been clear evidence of his guilt and he was charged with murder?  What if, when the guilty man was being sentenced to prison for life, Michael were to have stood up in the courtroom?  What if Michael had said to the judge, “Your honor, I know this man is guilty of killing my wife.  I know the just punishment for his crime is life in prison.  But I would like to take his place.  I would like to take on his punishment for him.  Send me to jail instead.”  We cannot even imagine Michael saying that.  And yet, that’s what Jesus did for us.  All of us are imperfect, and all of us have violated God’s laws.  There are consequences for doing the wrong thing (read Chapter 1 of The Bible’s Book of Genesis).  And if each of us were on trial in a courtroom for our various misdeeds, we’d be found guilty as charged.  Imagine a just judge dealing out the punishment to us that aligned with our crimes.  Then imagine Jesus entering the courtroom.  Imagine Him saying, “Excuse me, your honor.  I know that’s the consequence she deserves for the crimes she’s committed.  But I’m here to take the consequence on for her so she doesn’t have to.  Whatever her sins deserve, do it to me instead.”  What innocent person knowingly takes on the consequences of the guilty?  A Jewish rabbi named Jesus.  If you’ve ever wonder if God is all-loving, think of that.

  Third, although it takes faith to believe in God, it also takes faith to not believe in God.  For example, imagine you discover an exquisite piece of artwork and say, “Wow, who made this?” and I replied, “No one. It just appeared.”  You would think I was mad.  You would say, “Such design cannot just appear from nothing.  It couldn’t have fallen from the sky.  It must have a designer!”  To believe that art exists without an artist takes great faith, and involves believing in the stuff of leprechauns and unicorns.  I would suggest it takes less faith to believe in God.  Granted, if all design requires a designer, then eventually we will trace everything back to creation’s beginning and say, “God made it” at which point someone could fairly ask, “Well who made God?”  Because God is all powerful we can reasonably say, “Because He’s God He’s always been and always will be.  I can’t fully understand it because I’m not God.”  An atheist has to rely on faith and explain how the complexities of the human body, other species, nature, etc., came to be literally from nothing while not providing the explanation of a higher power orchestrating it.

  Fourth, when labelling things as “good” or “evil” we are implying a known standard we measure things by.  If there is no God, who, or what, determines what is evil and what is good?  Without God, we are left to humans deciding, and humanity’s long standing history of human rights violations makes us less than good authorities on this matter. 

  Peter doesn’t seem to like the idea that all humans are special because it implies a belief in God who says we are special.  So what’s the alternative?  One could not believe in God but still think humans ought to be treated kindly by their fellow humans.  This would be the assumption I mentioned in part 1 which we come to through intuition or because it is self-evident.  It is the most inclusive position for even atheists to hold, because no humans get left out by this standard.  Just as someone could be atheist and against racism, one could be atheist and against killing fellow humans (particularly believing it’s wrong for parents to kill their offspring).  Having said that, human weakness often causes us to depart from the standard that we should treat members of the human family equally and kindly.  All too often when a human gets in another human’s way, or has something we want, we come up with qualities, criteria, and features that includes ourselves and excludes those whose elimination we wish to justify.  Whether it’s ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, cognitive level, or age—determining whether a human is protected based on qualities like these inevitably excludes some humans.

  The fifth, and final, point is this: God could have made us like robots so we were forced to choose Him and never disobey His commands.  But such choosing wouldn’t be authentic; it would be programmed.  It would therefore be meaningless.  No person wants to marry a beloved who is forced to say “I do.”  Instead, we want to know the other party, in freedom, willingly chooses a lifetime together.  The pursuer may romance his love interest, and entice her with all kinds of things like flowers, love notes, and gifts, but at the end of the day, she still must decide in freedom if she wishes to give her assent.  Likewise, God romanced humanity by blessing us with relationship and beauty of all kinds, but He still gave us the opportunity to choose Him—which meant we also could reject Him.  God had forewarned Adam and Eve of the consequences of violating His command and, as a person of integrity, was a man of His word and followed through when they rejected Him.  But at the same time, as a Father and lover, He got creative about both following what He said and giving His creatures a path of redemption—salvation.  As with Adam and Eve, we each have an unfolding story and we, like them, are given a choice—To choose God or reject Him.  And as the history of the world shows, rejecting him leads to all kinds of devastation and suffering—the very things Peter is concerned about.

To return to the start of this series, click here.

Photo by Mads Schmidt Rasmussen on Unsplash

What's Ahead for the Church in 2020? by Stephanie Gray

On January 15, 2020, The Colson Center for Christian Worldview released a symposium on Breakpoint called “What’s Ahead for the Church in 2020?” and it included reflections from various Christian leaders. Below is Stephanie Gray’s submission:

There are many “issues” Christians need to be prepared to address, but there is really one theme at the heart of them all: The Gospel message—or its opposite. The choice facing our world is this: Do we pick selflessness? Or selfishness? Do we trust God as authority? Or do we make ourselves the authority?

In Luke 22:19 Jesus gives us the path to life: “This is my body given for you.” He set the template for us to follow, but tragically we humans constantly find ourselves in a state of rebellion, making choices that essentially declare the opposite: “This is your body given for me.”

That is the mentality that drives the issue I focus much of my time on: Abortion. With some states limiting access to abortion while others are expanding access to it, this conflict is readily seen. Abortion is a selfish expression of “This is your body given for me,” but all of us reading this have experienced the selfless love of our mothers who, when pregnant with us, by carrying to term, essentially communicated, “This is my body given for you.” Their action was surrender, not servitude. And as recipients of this greatest love, we should joyfully pay it forward to others.

Christians need to be equipped to articulate that, even in evil circumstances of someone’s conception, namely rape, abortion does not erase the injustice. Moreover, the worth of the innocent life conceived is not affected by how she or he came to be.

We need to know how to explain that when a pregnant woman’s life is danger, saying that the “road is closed” to having an abortion doesn’t mean there is no “detour ahead”—in other words, it is possible to still help her, but in an ethical manner. And we need to help people see that in the face of a poor prenatal diagnosis, the child with physical and genetic difference should not be viewed as human doing with less than adequate performance abilities, but as a human being to love and be loved by.

Image Source from Unsplash: Alicia Petresc, @alice02

ADVERTISEMENT:

The Greatest Love, by Stephanie Gray

What would you do if, while waiting for a subway train to arrive, you noticed a seizuring man fall onto the tracks?  To Wesley Autrey the answer was clear: Jump onto the tracks and help him. 

And on January 2, 2007, that’s what he did.  Except Autrey wasn’t just helping a man in need.  He was putting himself in danger.  Because as the fallen man convulsed on the tracks, the lights of an oncoming train flashed before them.

  Autrey couldn’t get the man off the tracks in time.  But rather than abandon him, Autrey laid on top of him, protecting the young man’s flailing body with his lanky frame.  And then train cars came.  Not just one, not just two, but five—five—train cars would roll over the men before coming to a stop.

Miraculously the men survived.  Miraculously they were unharmed.  Miraculously the center space between the tracks that they were squished into, with the thickness of both men’s frames, and the bottom of the train hovering over, was just enough clearing (21-24 inches) for them to be untouched.  Unless you count Autrey’s blue cap.  It did get some grease marks on it.

Much has been said to describe Autrey’s heroic actions.  But I think the most fitting phrase is this:

  “This is my body given for you.”

  In his video “Opposites,” Michael Spielman at the group abort73 begins by pointing out that the opposite of love is hate.  He then uses that as a springboard to ask what the opposite of the greatest love is.  He makes the point that if the greatest love is a willingness to lay down your life for another, then the opposite of that is to lay down another’s life for yourself.

Wesley Autrey didn’t just demonstrate love.  He demonstrated the greatest love.

  Fast forward to Puebla, Mexico, November 10, 2019.  I was participating in a history-making event.  I was one of 8 women debating abortion in front of thousands at La Ciudad de las Ideas (CDI, a festival similar to TED Talks).  The talk would be live-streamed to tens of thousands as well as televised throughout Mexico. 

  In the days prior, I had prayerfully reflected about what I should impart during my segments of the debate. I nestled into a small chapel in Vancouver to ask God what He wanted me to say.

  “Speak, Lord, your servant is listening” (1 Samuel 3:10).

  Of all the ideas that came to mind, two in particular would stand out.  The first was I recalled the message from the “Opposites” video I mentioned above, and how it relates to abortion.  In some way I knew I had to use that. The second was to associate every hearer’s physical body with my message so they would be constantly reminded of the truth proclaimed: For all of the differences between us humans, a “tie that binds” is our bellybuttons, and each time people noticed theirs, I wanted them to be reminded that we all once were in the womb.

  With those ideas percolating I prepared my 60-second conclusion.  It was a profoundly tight window to make my point but I had it rehearsed down to the second.  Except two things happened:

1)     The day before the debate, I was inspired by another presenter, Tal Ben Shahar, a professor who teaches the most popular course at Harvard on positive psychology, which is all about happiness.  He talked about a psych experiment that was done where people were given money and told to buy themselves something and then their mood/happiness was measured afterwards.  Similarly, people were given money and told to donate it to someone/some cause and that group showed longer-lasting happiness. He then used that point to reference something from his first language, which is Hebrew.  He said that his favorite name is “Natan” which is a palindrome that means “to give” and his message was that when you give you receive.  When I heard that I just knew I should reference him (and his well-received talk with the audience) in my closing arguments the following day and use his popular perspective to show how it aligns with a pro-life worldview.  Somehow I needed to add more to my already tight conclusion.

2)     When the time for the debate came, and as it was nearing its end, with no warning the moderator shortened our conclusion from 60 seconds to a mere 30. 

  How do you take such a weighty topic and distill your position down to 30 seconds of expression?  The old adage “say one thing and say it well” was more relevant than ever.  But somehow, in half the time, along with an additional point to make, I was about to say three things.  How was that possible?  All I can think is that I had asked my prayer team to pray “For a supernatural multiplication of the minutes and seconds in the short time-frames we have to speak” and that that prayer was answered.

  As I watched my precious seconds disappear on the counter, I proclaimed,

“Every single one of us, on our bodies, has a bellybutton.  Which is a reminder that every single one of us was once a child in the womb.  We were once weak and vulnerable and our powerful mothers could have decided to dominate and destroy us by saying, ‘This is your body given for me.’  But instead, in an act of love, our mothers said, ‘This is my body given for you.’  It’s what Tal said—‘Natan’—to give is to receive.”

  Before that conclusion, my opponents had lived true to form by espousing their movement’s mantra of “My body, my choice.”  Rather than entirely reject their sentiment, I opted to define it.  When it comes to abortion it is about choice—a choice between two worlds.  A choice between a world where

1)     People use and abuse each other by selfishly demanding, “This is your body given for me” or where

2)     People reverence and honor each other by selflessly offering, “This is my body given for you.”

Of course, these worlds are not new.  Throughout human history there is a dark pattern of sin where people hurt each other.  But over 2,000 years ago, a person who was to grow up to become a Jewish rabbi entered our broken world as a pre-born child.  He, too, would bear on His body a bellybutton.  He would be Son, but He would also be God.  And as God, He would continue to do what the Father had always done for His chosen people: He would continue a pursuit of the creation that was “very good” in order to win their hearts to the home of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   But the gates to that home needed to be opened because sin had closed them.  The punishment of man’s sin was death, but, instead, this rabbi, Jesus, would take their place.  He, an innocent, would take on the consequence for the guilty.  He would offer, “This is my body given for you.”

  And in that offering would be an invitation—a proposal: To choose the greatest love over its opposite.

  So choose.  But, like Wesley Autrey once did, choose well.

Note: Below is the journal entry where I asked God to let me know what He wanted said.

Debate image source from here.

What Will Make Christians Care About Abortion? by Stephanie Gray

Irena Sendler

     Last week I spoke at Church of the Resurrection, a thriving Anglican church in Wheaton, IL, with a fantastic shepherd, Bishop Stewart Ruch.  During Q and A, I was asked about how people can appeal to their fellow Christians to take abortion more seriously; in particular, I was asked what influences Christians to respond adequately to the plight of pre-born children.  I believe there are three factors in particular:

1.      Conviction,

2.      Education, and

3.      Courage

     Conviction is a strong persuasion or belief.  It is deeper than intellectual assent.  It involves capturing the heart.  And in the context of Christianity, it's not simply knowing about Jesus, or about His commands; it requires a personal relationship with Him, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  This way, just as we care about the things that people we care about, care about, a personal relationship with Jesus will naturally draw forth from us a deep concern for what concerns Him.  As the song “Hosanna” by Hillsong United declares, “Break my heart for what breaks yours.”  Abortion destroys God's creation that is more than good--it is "very good" (Genesis 1:31); it destroys life made in His image (Genesis 1:26); it destroys the result of His command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28).

     I am reminded of an allegory I once heard about two people who recited Psalm 23.  The first was a professional orator who declared “The Lord is my shepherd…” with drama and exaggeration.  When he finished, the crowd jumped to its feet and clapped with much enthusiasm.  Then a humble pastor got up.  He lowered his gaze and bowed his head; then he slowly and reverently prayed, “The Lord is my shepherd…”  When he was finished the crowd was struck with silence—the only sounds being gentle weeping from a people profoundly moved.  The conclusion?  The orator knew the psalm but the pastor knew the shepherd.

     It’s like the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10: When the priest and Levite saw a half-dead robbed victim on the road to Jericho they passed by on the other side.  The Samaritan man, however, was moved with compassion and cared for the wounded soul.  It was as though the priest and the Levite knew the law, but the Samaritan knew the law-giver.  We need to foster more than simply knowing about Jesus, but actually being in relationship with Him so that the cry of our hearts becomes the cry of the blind man Bartimaeus to Jesus: “Lord that I may see” (Mark 10:51).

     Just as the Good Samaritan “saw” with his eyes, and his heart, the plight of his neighbor, we should pray “that we may see” the plight of our pre-born neighbors just as Jesus sees it.  We should allow ourselves to come face-to-face with their broken bodies and allow their dismembered limbs to communicate to us what their silent screams could not.  We should pray to “see” their beauty and fragility, and the corresponding destruction of what abortion did to them, so as to respond with the broken heart that God Himself responds with.

     Following conviction, there can arise within us a fear of how people will respond if we act on such conviction, which is why education is so necessary.  The more people are equipped to “give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15) the more readily people will share.  We need to help people gain confidence in their beliefs, helping them both understand and articulate the rationale behind the pro-life claims.  The better prepared people are to rebut objections, to explain things clearly and persuasively, the more they will increase in confidence, which means they will naturally decrease in fear.

     But fear won’t necessarily be entirely eliminated.  Which is why we need courage too.  I once heard it said that “courage is not the absence of fear, but a will to do what is right in spite of your fears.”  How do we instill courage?  I firmly believe we are more likely to be courageous when we surround ourselves by people who are.  There is something inspiring about the example of people who are other-oriented, especially when there’s personal cost involved.  The courage of others is magnetic, and draws that same virtue out of those who are exposed to it.

     That’s why I encourage communities of believers to immerse themselves in the inspiring examples of heroes and role models who responded to injustice in their midst and advocated for the vulnerable.  Movies like Schindler’s List, Gandhi, Sophie Scholl, Beyond the Gates, The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, and Eyes on the Prize are not about abortion, but they are about good people responding to injustice.  That’s what we need in response to abortion, and watching these examples and then discussing how the past can relate to our present, will instill the courage Christians need to make a better future.

Has Your Pastor Preached on Abortion? A Resource to Help, by Stephanie Gray

A year and a half ago, I met Pastor Ken Shigematsu, senior pastor of Tenth Church in Vancouver, where 2,000 people attend each Sunday.  He was preparing to deliver a sanctity of life sermon on abortion and asked me to preview his outline and give feedback.  Unfortunately Pastor Ken is rare—all too often church leaders avoid doing what he did: they avoid preaching on abortion from the pulpit, especially on a high-attendance Sunday morning.  But that needs to change. 

After working through his outline and doing my own presentations in various churches over the years, I developed a resource to make a pastor’s job as easy as possible when preparing to speak on this sensitive subject.  By clicking here you can access my PDF “Notes for a Pro-Life Sermon” and share it with your church leader.  In fact, last fall Bishop Dewane of the Diocese of Venice, Florida, circulated this resource to all of his priests.  Regardless of denomination, this document provides insights and resources a pastor can work with to deliver a pro-life message that is his own.

And why should he?  Because of the following:

1) Abortion happens a lot: 56 million of the youngest humans among us, pre-born children, are killed by abortion—every year around the world.  

2) Abortion happens amongst Christians: According to the Guttmacher Institute, 13% of women obtaining abortions identify as Evangelical Protestant, 17% as mainline Protestant, and 24% as Catholic.  That means that over 50% of women aborting align themselves with a Christian faith tradition of some sort. [Note: The source for this comes from the Guttmacher Institute (GI), which is a pro-abortion organization; however, they collect statistics that are otherwise difficult to obtain.  Furthermore, GI is an American organization.  Similar statistics are near impossible to get in Canada since statistic-collection regarding abortion in Canada is limited.  However, given the similarity between both countries regarding abortion rates and public opinion on abortion, it is reasonable to deduce that Canada’s statistics about the faith background of women having abortions would be similar to those of the US.]

3) Abortion happens amongst women who have already made that choice: As I’ve written in the past, some of the post-abortive are pre-abortive, as pointed out in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Canada (2012; 34(6): 532-542) which stated, “At least one third of women undergoing induced abortions in Canada have had a prior abortion.”  So not only can preaching spare women from ever killing their children, it can spare women from killing more of their children.

These statistics alone highlight the importance of preaching on this topic.  And any fear a pastor may have that people will react poorly needs to be addressed by this point: People may react poorly if the topic is handled poorly.  But the opposite of poor preaching is not no preaching—it’s good preaching.  This PDF will equip pastors to preach well on the topic of abortion in order to bring justice, mercy, and healing to our world. 

Cultivating Virtue, Part 3 of 3, by Stephanie Gray

In this series I’ve been examining 5 things people can do to cultivate virtue.  Point 1 about organizing self-less activities can be read here.  Points 2 to 4 about creating alternate heroes, strengthening willpower, and nurturing connection can be read here.

That leaves point 5: Protect against invasion.

     No matter how hard one works to strengthen themselves or their children, we are imperfect people living in an imperfect world.  So what safeguards can be put in place, particularly due to the invasion (such as pornography) that technology can bring into one’s home?  Here’s the list I recommend at the Parent Support Meetings I teach at:

     a)      Have a “no technology in the bedroom” rule; it simply decreases the odds of a child accessing pornography if they’re using technology (at least in your home) with other people around.  Consider the story of a 9-year-old girl in England who had set up a profile on a dating website, which connected her to a couple in Canada, who had sex in front of a web cam for her and were planning a camping trip where they could have sex with her.   A rule about no technology in the bedroom could have dramatically changed this situation; however, it’s important to point out that even technology in shared spaces can be used improperly when no one is around, which is why the next step is important.

     b)      Put a filter on all your family members’ devices.  Covenant Eyes has a good one and you can learn more about it here. 

     c)      Continually ask the question, “Why?” when you make decisions.  When I speak to parents of 11-year-olds, I ask how many of their kids have cell phones.  A few raise their hands.  So then I ask why their child needs a phone?  If a child, who is a minor, is always with a trusted adult, and if adults have cell phones, then a child doesn’t need a phone.  However, there are some times where that isn’t the case; as one parent told me, his child uses public transit so the child needs a phone in case of an emergency.  In this case, asking “Why is a phone needed?” brings us to a good reason for getting a phone.  But, it brings us to a good reason why only a phone-calling phone—not a data-enabled device—is needed.  As my fellow trainer Sue points out, her kids’ first phone is a flip phone that they have during their high school years—that enables her and them to communicate, and for them to have a resource to call for help in an emergency, but which doesn’t have access to data which is not needed and could give access to harmful material.

     When considering giving teens devices that adults use, such as data-enabled phones, it’s important to remember that the teenage brain is not properly developed.  Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor gives an excellent explanation of this in her TED Talk, in which she states her great motto, “Keep ‘em alive to 25.”  There are some things adults do (e.g., drive a car) that we don’t let children (e.g., 13-year-olds) do because we realize that while the tool is very helpful, it can be dangerous if mishandled.  Even when we eventually do transition young people to driving, it is with training and supervision before they are left independently with a car.  Technology, which is helpful but can be dangerous, should be treated the same way.

     d)      Have conversations—lots of them—with your child.  Don’t just make rules without explaining them.  Listen and talk.  Ask good questions.  Speaker and author Matthew Kelly illustrates well the art of good questions for teaching one’s child at this link (click on preview and listen at 4:31).  Use analogies to help your child understand that rules are meant to help us, not harm us; for example, you could ask them to think about stoplights at intersections and what the red, yellow, and green lights mean.  Then ask them what would happen if a person going one direction thought red meant go, and a person going in another direction knew green meant go.  The subsequent crash would be bad, and potentially fatal.  The standard about the meaning of stoplights and the expectation that people follow the rules is meant to help us run as a civil society and keep things peaceful and safe, rather than be unduly restrictive.  So it is with a parent’s rules—they are meant to help us, not harm us. 

     Moreover, spend time—with your child—going through websites like Fight the New Drug  and Chastity Project, watching video clips and reading the material and then discussing together.  Let your child know they can come to you to talk about anything they are struggling with or stumble upon, and make sure you are calm, receptive, and compassionate in the face of your child revealing weakness.

     e)      Foster silence: There is so much noise, visual and audio, in our culture today that it can be hard to hear the voice of God; it’s difficult to perceive the still small voice of conscience.  Consider Elijah: In 1 Kings 19 God wasn’t in the wind, earthquake, or fire.  Rather, He was in a whisper.  Elijah heard God’s command in the silence.  So too must we make it a priority to encourage times of silence in our homes, which should lead to prayer and repentance.  As author Jacques Philippe writes, “Prayer enables us to draw from God a life that is ever new, to let ourselves be continually reborn and renewed.  Whatever our trials and disappointments, harsh situations, failures, and faults, prayer makes us rediscover enough strength and hope to take up our lives again with total confidence in the future.” 

Cultivating Virtue, Part 2 of 3, by Stephanie Gray

Me with one of my heroes, Nick Vujicic, who I met in 2010.

     Last week in part 1 of Cultivating Virtue, I said there were five things we can do to respond to negative forces in our culture like isolation, no self-control, self-centeredness, using others, and a false identity.  Point 1 was to organize self-less activities.  Today we reflect on three more responses:

2. Create alternate heroes

     My fellow trainer Sue came up with this great idea.  As the saying goes, we become who our friends are—because friends are who we spend a lot of time with, and who or what we spend time with ends up rubbing off on us.  What goes in will come out.  So it is with heroes—whoever we spend our time watching, studying, and thinking about will manifest in our behaviors.

     If you don’t want your children to emulate foul-mouthed promiscuous celebrities, you need to fill their minds and lives with good alternatives.  That’s why I love featuring the stories of Nick Vujicic, Dick and Rick Hoyt, Zach Hunter, or Caden and Conner Long.  There are endless examples in the history books and online of people, young ones in particular, who are making, or have made, a positive contribution to the world.

    What these true heroes demonstrate is how to live life based on “Happiness Levels” 3 and 4 instead of 1 and 2.  The Washington-based ministry Healing the Culture  has taught extensively on this topic of what they call The 4 Levels of Happiness.  They say the following,

     “The way we de­fine happiness will determine how we live our lives, what we think is most important, how we treat other people, what we mean by ‘success’ and ‘quality of life,’ how we view human rights... even how we view ourselves as human beings.”

     They point out that defining happiness simply based on physical pleasure (Level 1: I’m hungry; I eat; I’m happy) or ego-gratification (Level 2: I run a race; I beat you; I’m happy), will bring about an unhealthy society.  But real heroes, as mentioned above, define happiness based on contribution and self gift (Level 3: I see you are in need; I help you; I’m happy) and faith in God’s unconditional love (Level 4: abandonment to God and experiencing the peace which flows from that).  It’s important to note that happiness levels 1 and 2 are not bad in and of themselves—it’s good to meet our physical needs and advance our talents; the point is simply that a problem arises when our ultimate end of happiness, our focus in life, or our purpose for living, stay on those levels rather than advance to higher ones.

3. Strengthen Willpower

     The third thing we can do to cultivate virtue is to strengthen willpower, and I wrote about that here. 

4. Nurture Connection

     Humans were made for relationship.  Whether it’s the Bible telling us that (in Genesis 2:18: “It is not good for man to be alone”) or whether it’s clinical psychologist and professor Dr. Sherri Turkle telling us that (as outlined in her TED Talk Connected, But Alone?), we are creatures built for connection.

     When I went on a 40-day retreat last fall, I experienced freedom by being unplugged.  Not having technology as a distraction left a void that was beautifully filled by connecting face-to-face with the people I was living with in community.  Whether it was talking face to face with others over three sit-down meals/day, or evening chats with my dorm sisters before bed, or joining other guests and members in card games or musical extravaganzas that involved harmonized singing, piano, guitar, and fiddles, we were together, in relationship; that is what we were made for, and as a result our spirits were nurtured.

    If, for the rest of your life, you had to choose between only spending time with your loved ones face-to-face or only staying in touch with them via technology, which would you choose?  Our answer explains why it is important to set up boundaries around technology—to make sure we truly stay connected.  Technology should aid our human interactions, not replace them. 

     Case in point, when I returned from my retreat and "plugged back in,” I started to handle technology differently: I found I wasted a lot of time swiping the Facebook app on my phone, so I removed the app.  Instead, I allow myself to log in only twice each day.  I am able to receive the benefits of this social networking tool (stay connected to find out about in-person events and share and receive information related to the culture wars) but keep things ordered so that technology is a slave of me, not me a slave of technology.  These limits force me to think through my usage (one log in during the day means I only have one login left!), to reflect more deeply about what is worth posting—and what isn’t, and to give primacy to my in-person relationships, not technological networks.

     Likewise, families that thrive will set up boundaries and limits around technology use.  There should be times where technology isn’t allowed (during meals, during family games nights, and in the car [some of the best parent-child conversations can happen in the car where people are in close proximity but staring in the same direction—if technology isn’t allowed to get in-between]).  If done right, far from being oppressive, such boundaries will be freeing to the human spirit and will make sure face-to-screen connection doesn’t replace or supersede what we were made for: face-to-face connection.

Wonder what the fifth point is?  Read it here!

Cultivating Virtue, Part 1 of 3, by Stephanie Gray

“When we deny children access to meaningful education about their burgeoning sexual development, we give them no choice but to glean what they can from a highly sexualized media.” –Sharna Olfman, psychology professor

     Since moving back to BC a year and a half ago, I have partnered with Signal Hill and the Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese to be part of a team of speakers who train parents how to talk to their children about human growth, development, and sexual morality.  When parents don’t feel equipped or comfortable speaking to their children on this topic, the culture’s reaction is to say, “We’ll do it for you,” and then government steps in, as we’re seeing with the Ontario sexual education curriculum.  But what we teach at these “Parent Support Meetings,” is that the parents, not the government, are the primary educators of their children when it comes to sexuality; therefore, instead of replacing the parents in their role, we aid the parents in their role.  That’s why, parents of students in grades 4-7 in Catholic schools in the Vancouver archdiocese are called to come to meetings to be informed, enlightened, and equipped for how to speak with their children on this sensitive topic.  My role is to give a general session presentation and speak to the parents whose children are in grade six.  And upon reflecting on one of my recent presentations, it occurred to me that what I recommend for these parents is good advice for us all.

     After playing this short video, I reflect on the quote by the featured dad who narrates “We have some pretty big hopes for him [his son James].”  Parents naturally want what’s good for their children, and the parents gathered that evening have big hopes for their own kids too.  But, there are strong forces in the world today that can interfere with this.  I ask the parents what challenges they see facing their soon-to-be teenagers, and I get a litany of answers such as

·         video games,

·         social media,

·         pressure to fit a certain mold, and

·         pornography.  

       While some of those things are inherently wrong (pornography), others may or may not be a problem—it’s how they’re used (social media).  So if we step back from the specifics of that list and look at what general problems can be brought about, they are the following:

·         isolation,

·         addiction/no self-control,

·         self-centeredness,

·         using humans as objects, and

·         a false identity.

     So if we want to directly respond to these negative forces we need to develop their opposite, positive, forces.  Doing so creates an environment where virtue, instead of vice, will naturally breed.  So there are 5 things I recommend for the parents, and us all:

1.      Organize self-less activities

     When I was growing up, my mom volunteered—a lot.  And because she volunteered, quite naturally my sister and I volunteered too, helping her deliver meals on wheels or assisting at various pro-life and church events.  Her nursing work with the elderly naturally lead to our playing the piano for the elderly, and so forth.  How often are parents taking their children volunteering?  The more that happens, the more children will naturally look outside themselves, building a defense against the temptation to turn inward.

     Then there is RAK: Random Acts of Kindness.  A few years ago when I was living in the Toronto area, I was bored about an impeding lonely weekend with no plans.  While lamenting over text with one of my friends in Calgary, she too was bored and down on life, and although we were texting that we wished we could hang out with each other that weekend, geography and expensive flights put that idea to rest.  Then she texted me, “I know what we need!  We need RAK!”  I thought it was a typo or strange auto-correct, but then she explained to me what RAK was, and how we could challenge each other to spend the weekend doing at least 7 random acts of kindness, taking photos of our adventures, and then swapping stories at the end of the weekend.  From leaving flowers on a car in a parking lot, to placing an uplifting quote on a post-it note in a public washroom, to making a meal for a needy friend, to leaving an encouraging note at a bank machine, to dropping off an envelope at Tim Horton’s with money for the cashier and the next customer, and more, We. Had. A. Blast.  Our weekend started off negative, but it ended so positively; there were smiles, laughter, and joy, all because instead of looking inwards, we chose to change our gaze outwards.

Wondering what the other points are?  Fine out in part 2 of this reflection!

My Changed Perspective on Coffee, by Stephanie Gray

     I once was a coffee snob.  The key word is was.  It all began in Costa Rica.  I traveled there in 2011 to give several talks, and was introduced to the wonderful world of coffee (before then, I had been only a Tea Granny, and that I still am).  You can’t go to one of the best coffee growers in the world and not begin to enjoy the luxurious liquid that is coffee.

     I returned to enjoy fine coffee shops, including Vancouver’s wonderful 49th Parallel.  I was that person who, when going to a restaurant, would order coffee and ask, “How fresh is the coffee?” and the waitress would usually say, “I’ll put on a new pot for you.”  And I would be quite satisfied at the fresh cup of java coming my way.  But last fall, everything changed. 

     I went on a 40 day experience in the wilderness at Madonna House (which I’ve written about previously here).  Suddenly, daily coffee was no longer a reality—it was relegated to special occasions, namely Sunday.  Their founder Catherine Doherty, a Russian baroness, had instituted “tea time” at several periods throughout the day, and as much as I love tea too, something happens when you’re deprived of something you like: you seem to want it even more.  I would drink the tea but think, “I wish I could have coffee.”

     And then Sunday came.  Madonna House lives a spirit of poverty so although there would be no “whole milk latte” or fancy, freshly ground coffee beans, Sunday was the day where there was, at least, plain ‘ol coffee.  Having been deprived of it for several days, I can’t begin to tell you how good it was. 

     Then, imagine my surprise one Monday when coffee was in a canister at my table.  I eagerly poured a cup and savored my first sip: “Wow, this is really good; it tastes even better than yesterday’s coffee,” I said.  One of the members then said to me, “It is yesterday’s coffee; it was leftover so we reheated it.”  The coffee connoisseurs out there might cringe but I have lived to tell the tale and can testify that it tasted even better after 24 hours.

     Then there was the day I was assigned to work on the farm.  The community had just slaughtered 4 cows and over 30 sheep, and I was one of the people tasked with cutting up the meat.  Since our job was more challenging, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that when we took a break for tea time, those of us cutting up the meat got a special treat: Coffee!  But it was instant coffee.  Well, no joke: It. Was. Delicious.

     Through all this, I enjoyed coffee more.  Why?  Because I appreciated it more.  Why?  Because it wasn’t accessible every day, so it became “special” and thus notable.  Unfortunately this experience is uncommon in the western world.  We have such excess that we are rarely, if ever, deprived.  Whatever our mood, craving, or desire, we can generally satisfy it.  It’s not that to do so is necessarily bad, it’s just that when we don’t temper our consumption of things, we can find ourselves losing the ability to see the special and to grow in discipline.

     As I have reflected on our culture of late, what has struck me is how, if we are to be a better society, we need to get back to basics like growing in virtues such as temperance and prudence.  A virtuous society must pursue the good, but what is good is often not easy.  Being ethical in law, in politics, in medicine, or in any field for that matter, requires sometimes going against what we want or against what is easy, because it is what is right.  We are more likely to do this if we exercise our willpower.  Just as someone who is physically strong must work out, must start with lighter weights and increase the heaviness, so too, if we want the moral discipline to do the right thing even when it’s hard, do we need to “exercise” our non-physical will and look for little ways to consistently practice going against impulses.  This is where depriving ourselves of something we desire, such as coffee, exercises those “muscles” so we’re stronger when it really matters.  It’s not that consuming coffee or something we crave is necessarily bad (nor is it wrong to enjoy a “finer” product—I still enjoy a luxury coffee now and then), it’s simply that when we practice saying no at times, it helps us in future situations where we really should say no.  It also helps us appreciate what we do get, when we get it.

     Author and speaker Matthew Kelly has written about this when he says,

     “Learning to delay gratification is one of life’s essential lessons…You cannot have a successful marriage, be a great parent, maintain good health, establish financial stability, or become educated unless you are willing to delay gratification.  The best at anything are better than everyone else at delaying gratification--and that includes the great Christian heroes, champions, and saints who fill the history books” (Source: Rediscover Jesus).

     That’s why, every morning, I pull a piece of paper out of what I call my “Sacrifice Box.”  On the papers is written the three things I ideally like to consume daily: Coffee, tea, and a little sweet (90% dark chocolate and gummies are my favorites).  Each morning I choose to deprive myself of one of them.  I put my hand in the box and close my eyes and ask God to help me pick out the item that will be most pleasing to Him, that will help me grow in holiness.  Then, whichever paper I grab is the object I deprive myself of that day.  When it’s free coffee day at McDonald’s, that’s usually when the coffee sacrifice is picked out.   And the day that’s set aside to go to a tea room with friends is typically when the tea sacrifice is selected.  The deprivation pinches, but it also builds self-control and helps us make decisions based on will power, not feeling. 

     “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” –Galatians 5:22-23

Why Should Christians Care? by Stephanie Gray

    Last Sunday I spoke at an Alliance church and the pastor asked me to explain to his congregation why Christians could be concerned about abortion.  Although there are many passages in the Scriptures I could have highlighted to make the Biblical case against abortion, I chose one: Luke 1. 

     Those who reflect on Luke 1 as it relates to the pro-life message, often point to John the Baptist, the late-term fetus, “the babe [who] leaped in [Elizabeth’s] womb” (Luke 1:41).  But the animation of John the Baptist is not what I was focused on.  Instead, I was focused on why John the Baptist leaped for joy.  We read that Mary “entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth” (Luke 1:40).  John the Baptist leaped “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary” (Luke 1:41).  To understand why the pre-born prophet did this we need to rewind.

     Mary had recently had a visitor of her own: “the angel Gabriel [who] was sent from God” (Luke 1:26).  This messenger came not only to state “you have found favor with God” (Luke 1:30) but that “you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus” (Luke 1:31).  Mary then gave God her yes: “let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).  And so Mary was forever changed.  The presence of one became the presence of two.  She who was made in the image of God suddenly carried God.  She was transformed into a walking tabernacle, a dwelling place for God made man, so that when she greeted Elizabeth, Mary was not alone. 

     In the days long before cell phones, texting, Facebook and Twitter, no social media delivered a message to Elizabeth about what had happened.  But upon the presence of the Holy Presence, she and John the Baptist knew.  They sensed the presence of God made man in the early embryo.  John the Baptist did what he could do—he leaped.  Elizabeth did what she could do—she exclaimed, “Blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:43).  And Mary responded, “My soul magnifies the Lord" (Luke 1:46).

     All three were focused on the youngest in their midst.   Divinity had taken on humanity.  In the silence and the darkness of the womb, new life had begun, the life of Christ. 

     God, who is all-powerful, demonstrates His supremacy throughout the Scriptures.  He turned a rod into a serpent and back; He made Moses’ hand leprous and then restored it (Exodus 4:2-7).  He “formed man of dust from the ground” (Genesis 2:7).  God could have chosen any number of ways to become human, but the way He chose was to take on the form of the youngest among us, the human embryo.  That was your beginning; it was my beginning; and it was also God's beginning as man.  Since abortion destroys this new life, which God Himself once was, that is why Christians should be concerned about abortion.