Today there are two main questions that had come up in the past thirty-six hours or so. Not sure which is the more pressing; both, I think, are intriguing.
Q #1
What are Christians so reluctant to speak out about their faith?
With the exception perhaps of the fundamentalists and some of the more energetic (which are often somewhat mis-labelled evangelicals) by and large Christians tend to keep their faith to themselves. In the past there were eras where they built beautiful buildings with great acoustics accompanied by powerful pipe organs; but, today many of these former sanctuaries are now museums, condos or simply boarded up. There were also eras where public media were used to deliver mini-sermonettes. I can remember my father participating in “morning/daily devotions” on radio stations in both Woodstock ON and Belleville ON. Congregations within which I have been early in life a member participated in “church of the air” and there were others that actually produced televised services. But these have all but disappeared except in certain parts of the southern USA, or on specialty TV channels and radio stations. Many congregations do use websites, but these are primarily for their own memberships.
The reason I raise this at all, is that yesterday I listened/watched on C-Span 2 (from the USA) a very powerful sermon from the Chaplain to the US Senate. He delivered a no-holds-barred, but very respectful sermon to a fairly diverse audience at the annual Presidential Prayer Breakfast. Rev. Black has a voice in a lower register that only I could dream of hitting. But that is not what I found most amazing about his talk. He was preceded by a Rabbi who picked some thoughtful verses from the Old Testament and gave them in Hebrew and then in English. These spoke to the need to be respectful of others and of God which neatly set the stage for Black’s sermon (for it was more than a simple guest speech). Black spoke forcefully, knowing full well that among the guests was the king of Jordan, as well as many others of diverse perspectives on faith and religion. He drew very effectively on the Old Testament without reminding us that this collection of writings is fundamental to three major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). He also spoke passionately about what Jesus Christ had to say and what he represented in our ability to communicate with God. In fact, his theme was basically that we have to improve and intensify our messages upward — to make sure we are heard. He made it clear that it is not first and foremost that we consider our communications with each other — no, we have to get ourselves more in tune with the divine. He was not apologetic, he was not trying to be either politically correct or incorrect. He was telling us that through his faith, nurtured in his early days by his mother amidst an all-black community not far from the capital (reminding me of the story in Hidden Figures), he realizes that Jesus Christ is not just important today — he is vital if we are to get to a world of peace, respect and acceptance. He even quoted from the New Testament a passage that exhorts Christians to pray for all people, that all may experience a direct connection with God. I am keeping the reference to this speech as I will listen again. I will listen again because I need to become more embolden about my own faith — not to try to shove it down others throats, but rather to help people understand the importance of having faith in the divine, no matter the cultural or spiritual orientation one comes from. I must respect others’ religious leanings not out of some political correctness, but because we are all God’s children. We are all of his/her creation. It does not mean that I accept every religious fad, nor every effort by some to twist inclusiveness into banal commonality, nor even that everything done in the name of religion or religious piety is acceptable. It means that I have to make a greater effort to make sure my voice is heard in heaven, that it is directed upward, that I learn to love more, share more, be more!!
I wish I could end my discussion at this point. Unfortunately, even though almost everyone else at the Prayer Breakfast was emphasizing goodwill and acceptance, peace and love, the President also was invited to speak. I say unfortunately, because I wanted his speech to be a resounding validation that he had absorbed the sermon, and that the mood of the breakfast might just be a turning point in the mood in Washington and from there, the world. After lavishly praising Rev. Black (who is also a military officer), in about 14.8 seconds the President launched into another of his attack ads. I listened to the end, as I wanted to hear a new voice, a voice trying to reach to the heavens. It didn’t happen for me, in fact I wondered if he was trying to reach in the opposite direction. But you can judge for yourself. Here is the link to the entire C-Span 2 podcast: https://www.c-span.org/video/?423370-1/president-trump-delivers-remarks-national-prayer-breakfast
But no matter, the sermon still resonates with me. I might just write Chaplain Black and thank him. I wouldn’t want him to be discouraged!!
Q #2
Did you know that in the battle to provide more food to the ever burgeoning population on our planet, scientists are now fighting bugs with bugs?
Last night I attended a lecture at Okanagan College (Penticton Campus) given by David Theilmann, PhD who is both a researcher at the Summerland Research Station (Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada) and an Adjunct Professor at UBC. He is a specialist in insect pathogens and bio-pesticides along with molecular genetics. He actually understands the world of viral genomics and how host virus ecology can lead to the development of better pesticides — environmentally friendly and very effective pesticides to help farmers, orchardists, vinters and even ranchers improve their plant crops.
If things continue as they are, it is quite likely that my grandkids will inherit a world of close to 9 billion people. And, unless we think that the best way to address population growth is through starvation, we need to increase and enhance our food production capabilities. At the same time the costs associated with developing synthetic pesticides is rising astronomically so that there are fewer options being made available. These increased costs are a result of greater and longer testing requirements, heightened concerns around downstream health impacts and side effects, plus more limited opportunities to market in agricultural areas/countries of significant poverty. As a result new directions are needed. This is where bio-pesticides become valuable.
For one thing, biological controls can be very directive. Creating viruses or other forms of “illnesses” within the insect population can be designed so as to only target a particular species, and impact only that unique part of the insect world. Basically the research is focused on the manipulation of the species being targeted. Accompanying this are investigations into the variety of ways to spread the attack including in some instances, creating a biological illness that causes the dying insect to move to the top of the plant thereby becoming visible to more of his/her kin who in trying to mate with the insect acquire the virus or other illness themselves and so die too.
The baculovirus approach is becoming very important as it is environmentally friendly and not harmful to people. The drawback is that these can be slow acting and expensive to produce. This can make the returns on the value of impact less than optimal; however, with more research over time it is becoming less expensive and more cost/beneficial. There are other aspects of this war on pests. For example: some have significantly reduced the harm that the codling moth does to the Okanagan orchards. There has been the need to spray a city like Vancouver due to certain bugs and parasites that have come over on ships. Such can be done (from low flying airplanes) with the bio-pesticides because there is no harm to people, and no harm to any living thing other than the insect or bug that is being targeted.
The significance of all this is simple: it greatly improves the agri-food output of an area and even a nation. The short term benefits are being felt already, particularly in North America where some of these bio-pesticides are available on the commercial market. The mid- and long-term gains will be made as more and more of these approaches and products are made available in countries where agriculture is vital but synthetic pesticides can have negative impacts on people’s health so farmers become reluctant to use them. These bio-pesticides will be able to overcome the health fears while significantly expanding the capacities of even the smallest farms. As important, as the research grows, I believe that more and more foreign universities and technical institutes will themselves get into this research and thus, in an exponential way, significantly expand the war on pests.
If you want to know more about this — track down the Summerland Research Station and Dr. Theilmann. He seems very approachable and there were several farmers/orchardists in the audience who obviously have been implementing some of the results of the research with significant success.
g.w.