Myths to live by?
In his book A Fair Country John Ralston Saul argues that, among other things that make us unique, Canadians have developed as a society of community out of our close attention to our First Nations/Metis roots. He sees those roots in every Canadian institution and in most Canadian ways of doing things.
It's the basis of our politeness, our care for one another, our way of doing governance, our way of providing for the least among us. In a sparsely populated landscape peopled by generations of folk grown out of traditions steeped in mutual care for mutual survival, we have grown and developed quite differently from our cousins to the south.
Where they eradicated and conquered to take control of fat resources and easy wealth, we moved in more cautiously, shared the secrets of living with the land and grew to depend and rely upon the wisdom of those who were already here. If the southerners are and were about assimilation, we were and are about mutuality and integration. Both concepts are mythic, of course, but John Ralson Saul writes a myth that, it seems to me, we may well be living by.
It explains a lot. Canadians didn't put God on their money, they put a concept of God's love and care into their government. It wasn't always, or perhaps ever, easily done. We've had our general strikes, our small-pox blankets, our whiskey traders; residential schools; and our winner-take-all industrial developments. Our landscape is littered with the grave-sites of the people who came before us, and our hills are pock-marked with mined out pits and crumbling foundations. We are not saints.
But we know what it takes to survive as a people. We know that we are as strong as the weakest among us, we know that our health depends upon the health of our neighbours, that our ability to educate our children depends upon our neighbours ability to educate theirs. We know that we cannot drink water that we empty our waste into, that we cannot breathe air that we expel our sulpher into, that we cannot raise crops in the land we bury our garbage in. We know all of those things and they make a difference in the way we are with one another. We look back in horror, sometimes, but we also look ahead with faith that we will not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.
We also have a bit of a reputation as a people who are polite, but firm when it comes to bullies. Where our cousins to the south have had the misfortune to occupy both sides of the spectrum, depending on whether they were in Europe, Asia or South and Central America and Africa, we have quietly stood between; called to account; drawn lines in the sand and otherwise done our best to stop the strong from mauling the weak. Or so our myths tell us, anyway.
So here we have our myths: We care for one another; we are rooted in a Metis tradition; we share what we have with the weakest among us; we get between bullies and their targets. We honour God, not on our money, but in our activity. We preach the Gospel of love with a firm aspect, using words only if absolutely necessary. Our myths: who we are, or who we would like to be.
Currently we seem to be in the grips of a governing philosophy led in a rather tyrannical way by one or two angry middle-class, middle-aged white guys who woke up one day in Canada but are desperately trying to become Americans in every way they can. To do so they would have us deny our myths: abandon the poor to their fate; lay the land and the sky and the waters open to those who would despoil them for personal gain; destroy the social fabric that keeps us well cared for; and dishonour the gods of our ancestors by adopting the one on the money.
Maybe we should thank God that they are here, so that we might examine our myths and uphold the ancient truths they represent. Maybe we can make the myths come true, because of them.
Keith Simmonds is a diaconal minister in the Communities in Faith Pastoral Charge serving Beaver Valley, Rossland, Salmo and Trail.

Comments
Myth of a Christian Nation
I am reading a very interesting book right now by Gregory A boyd. It is called "the Myth of a Christian Nation. How the quest for Political power is destroying the church." It is about America but it has some very interesting points that would cover any country and or political system. The book states we have two types of power. 'Power over" kingdom of the world and "power under" kingdom of God it is "lion power versus "lamb power." The kingdom of God advances by people lovingly placing themselves under others, in service to others, at cost to themselves. This "coming under"doesn't mean that followers of Jesus conform to other people's wishes, but it does mean that we always interact with others with their best interests in mind.
Interesting. I think this
Interesting. I think this paradigm extends beyond religion into life in general. The desire for 'power' is a bad thing that corrupts churches, families, friendships, politicians, economies, and so on (see Lord of the Rings!). A desire for power is the desire for more than our fair share and points to some lack within the power seeker. Rather than look inward, the power seeker looks outward for attention, money, influence, etc. Rather than attempt to see things other people's way, they try to make the world align with their view of things.
In short, power is emptiness and thus the antithesis of spirituality. The moment a church seeks power, it's no longer a church but some sort of political/economic entity.
In a perfect world, I imagine churches wouldn't own property or bank accounts and would merely be gatherings of like-minded people who come together without props and incentives.
I do think that referring to 'power over' and 'power under' isn't the best way to explain these two ways of doing things. I'd prefer 'acceptance of power' and 'rejection of power'. The further one moves away from accumulating power for oneself, the more one tends to give to others.
The grains of truth in our myths
Myths survive best that contain at least some elements of truth. For our myths about Canada's virtues to survive, we need to ensure that their grains of truth exist in our present, not merely our history. One of the best ways to ensure that a set of bullies in our "majority" government (elected with 39% of the votes) cannot do in the future what they are doing now, is to require our voting system to become one of proportional representation, so that the various political parties are fairly represented in Parliament by numbers of Members of Parliament commensurate with the number of votes cast for their parties throughout Canada. Would this result in more minority governments? Yes. Would that mean that Bill C-38 or similar destructive legislation would be unlikely to pass? Yes. Would that be a bad thing? Not in my opinion!
Election reform
Yes to proportional representation! Yes to coalitions of minority parties! Yes to freeing us from the "majority" stranglehold of 39 per cent of voters and the "mandate" Harper feels is his to wield. The yield? It will be decades before the Cons' damage will be undone. Could this have been prevented in a real democracy where debate actually influenced the outcome? Yes! Minorities are stong for democracy. Majorities are strong for autocracies, especially those seeking to enrich the sliver-thin minority of merchant oligarchs (and oil-igarchs) at the expense of the commons...