Thursday, March 22, 2012

Global table fellowship


The word 'table' is mentioned 22 times in the Gospels. There is the overturning of the tables at the Temple, the times that Jesus was reclining at a table or came to eat at someone's table and the woman who said the dogs eat the crumbs from their master's table. It's probably hard for us to really see the word 'table' in the same way that the original audience did. We don't have the same ideas about hospitality and eating together. And half the time we eat our meals in front of the TV rather than around a table. We simply cannot understand table fellowship in the same way first century Jews did.

This is not a post about eating around a table, though. It is about justice and sharing and distribution. When Jesus talked about how we were to fellowship with other people and how we were to share our food, he was not just concerned about eating. For the way we shared food and fellowshipped together said something about our heart. Therefore it should not be limited to the dining room table and forgotten the minute we do the washing up. His words about meals and fellowship are to guide the way we live our lives.

But we also need a broader definition of table. When Jesus says neighbour, he does not just mean the people who live on either side of us. And when Jesus says table he doesn't just mean the people we may be likely to share a meal with. God's love is global. It is not limited to one country, one race or even one species. Therefore how we think about table fellowship must be global too.

One of the most memorable passages about the 'table' comes in Luke 14:7-14:

When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honour at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honour, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honoured in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbours; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

This is one of my favourite passages in the bible. It says so much about humility and generosity. If everyone lived by this passage, I think the world would be a much better place.

But it has some very important things to say to us if we consider the table as the world. Do people in first world countries give themselves the place of honour? That's undoubtedly a yes. If we consider the world's resources as a meal, who gets invited? The poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind? Or the rich neighbours living in first world countries? And what about other non-human species? They very rarely get invited to the meal at all. Instead of inviting the people that Jesus tells us to invite, we first world countries sit inside while the rest of the world is lucky to get our crumbs.

The rest of the world is a bit like Lazarus, wanting to eat what fell from the rich man's table:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. (Luke 16:19-21)

Most will know the story ends with Lazarus in Heaven and the rich man in Hell, begging Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue, because he is in agony.

How many are by our gates, begging for what falls from our table? Whenever I think of the inequality between first world and third world countries, Lazarus comes to mind. The rich man probably didn't even know that Lazarus was by his gate. He was too far beneath the rich man's notice. Not knowing the inequality in the way the world's resources are distributed is no excuse.

We can also imagine Lazarus as future generations, sitting by our gates, begging us to leave some of the world's resources for them, instead of using it all up ourselves before they are even born.

And of course, one of the most memorable events to ever happen at a table was when Jesus held the Last Supper. In Jesus and the Earth (2003), James Jones discusses this event in relation to the inequality in the world's consumption:

He gave us an activity by which to remember him and invoke his presence. It was and is an act of consumption - eating and drinking, bread and wine. Imagine around that table of 13 people if only four were allowed to partake and nine were excluded. Such an act of greedy consumption on the part of the four simply would not have been tolerated by the son of man who in Matthew 25 chides those who ignore the needs and rights of others to consume.

Jesus broke all the rules when it came to table fellowship. He ate with sinners, tax-collectors and prostitutes. But if we take his words about table fellowship and think we're following them because we've invited a few poor people to a meal, we're missing the point. Table fellowship is about so much more than just a meal. It is about how we share and distribute what we have. It's about what's in our heart.

The world is a table. Some get invited to the meal. Some get excluded. Some have all the fancy food. Some get nothing but crumbs. For Jesus' last meal, he didn't even exclude the one who would betray him. Exclusion from a meal just wasn't part of who he was. As Christ-followers, we should do all we can to include everyone at our table too. We must also ensure that everyone gets a place at the global table of the world's resources. 



Wednesday, March 21, 2012

New Facebook Page for God and Gum Nuts

I have started a new Facebook page for God and Gum Nuts. This will be a place to not only share what's happening on the blog, but lots of links, articles, quotes and other material related to Creation Care, particularly from an Australian perspective. Like us on Facebook

Thursday, February 16, 2012

The definition of pro-life


According to the Macquarie Dictionary, here are some definitions of the word 'life':

Life
1. the condition which distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic objects and dead organisms. The distinguishing manifestations of life are: growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. the animate existence, or the term of animate existence, of an individual:to risk one's life.
3. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
4. a state or condition of existence as a human being: life is not a bed of roses.
5. a period of existence from birth to death: in later life she became more placid.

The Macquarie Dictionary also defines as pro as:

Pro:
1. in favour of a proposition, opinion, etc. (opposed to con): to argue pro and con.
noun (plural pros) 
2. a proponent of an issue; someone who upholds the affirmative in a debate.
3. an argument, consideration, vote, etc., for something.
preposition 
4. in favour of: to argue pro the war.
phrase 
5. the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages. [Latin (preposition): in favour of, for]

So you would think that the term 'pro-life' could mean anything that is in favour for or supports living organisms (including animals and plants) to any aspect of a person's existence.

Not so, according to the Cornwall Alliance. When the President and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network called the reduction of mercury pollution a pro-life issue, the Cornwall Alliance replied, saying that the term pro-life 'denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies'. They also claimed that portrayal mercury poisoning as a pro-life issue was 'disingenuous and dangerous to our efforts to protect the lives of unborn children'. You can find the whole statement here: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/protecting-the-unborn-and-the-pro-life-movement/

The statement also claims that there are two fundamental principles which 'distinguish truly pro-life issues … from environmental issues'. First, pro-life issues 'are issues of actual life and death', rather than environmental issues which they say 'tend to be matters of health'. Second, 'truly pro-life issues address actual intent to kill innocent people'.

Mercury poisoning may well be a matter of health, especially when the concern is that it hurts unborn children. However, to say that all environmental issues tend to be matters of health is showing a complete ignorance of the ecological crises that we face.

Environmentalism is not only concerned with the health of human beings. For a start, it is not just people's health that is at risk. Environmental degradation and global warming will (and is) taking people's lives. For example, if the land is not healthy, then people do not have enough food. If people have no food, they starve. Is ensuring people have enough to eat an 'actual life and death' issue? Or is that just a health matter?

According to the World Health Organisation, here are some of the possible effects of climate change:
  • Extremes of both heat and cold can cause potentially fatal illnesses, e.g. heat stress or hypothermia, as well as increasing death rates from heart and respiratory diseases.
  • In cities, stagnant weather conditions can trap both warm air and air pollutants -- leading to smog episodes with significant health impacts.
  • These effects can be significant. Abnormally high temperatures in Europe in the summer of 2003 were associated with at least 27,000 more deaths than the equivalent period in previous years.
(Taken from Climate Change and Human Health, World Health Organisation, http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html)

 Admittedly, they call them 'acute adverse health effects'. But I would say that when people die from illnesses like hypothermia and heart and respiratory diseases because of extreme heat and cold, and when 27,000 people die from abnormally high temperatures, that is not just a health matter. It's an issue relating to life and death, and anyone who is truly pro-life would want to do something about it.

Furthermore, as will be clear from the Macquarie Dictionary definition given above, life does not just refer to human life. We are not the only living species on the planet. And we never will be, for if all other living things died, humans would too. So a truly pro-life position really has to be one that values and seeks protect all life forms, not just homo sapiens.

Their second proposition almost make me laugh. '[T]ruly pro-life issues address actual intent to kill innocent people.' Right, as opposed to environmental issues which are just seeking to prevent the unintentional killing of innocent people. If we continue to degrade the land, ruin the planet and change the climate, we are killing people. That may sound harsh but it's true. And it is the poorest people, the people who are completely dependent on the land, who suffer the most.

Also, as mentioned before, life does not just mean human life. While the Cornwall Alliance may like 'pro-life' simply to refer to the killing of innocent people, the fact that it says 'life' should means it refers to all living things. As a society, we intentionally take innocent lives all the time. We chop down trees, we destroy vegetation, we slaughter animals, we contribute to the extinction of plant and animal species. A truly 'pro-life' position may not be able (or even wish to) prevent all this taking of innocent lives, but it should at least value and seek to protect all life where it can.

Pro-life is a very broad term. The same can be said of pro-choice. And I have nothing against using the term 'pro-life' to refer to the prevention of abortions. But I don't believe it's right to choose a very broad term and yet try to limit it to a narrow set of issues. While pro-life may immediately bring to mind issues related to abortion or euthanasia, I think it's about time we widened it to include everything that 'life' really is. And if the pro-life movement don't want to the term 'pro-life' to be associated with every aspect of life, then maybe they should choose a narrower term that can't be used for environmental issues.

Genesis 1:30, 6:17 and 7:15 all make mention of everything that has the breath of life in them - and the reference is to animals, not just humans. In Genesis 9:9-17, God establishes his covenant with every living creature (vv. 10, 12, 15, 16) and with the earth (v. 13). He says that 'Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life'.

I think it's quite appropriate to call that a pro-life statement. And if we want to take the bible literally, it was perhaps the first pro-life statement ever spoken. And yet abortions aren't mentioned at all.

I believe that God is pro-life - and so am I - in the real definition of that term. 


Monday, February 13, 2012

A place for anger and bitterness


            Anger is not looked at too positively in our society. Bitterness is considered even worse. Activists, particularly indigenous rights activists or feminists, are sometimes called angry or bitter - and when they are, it's not a compliment.
            I agree that some activists are angry or bitter. But I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing. In fact, often it's that anger and bitterness that fuels their activism. It's that anger and bitterness that gives them the motivation to change things for the better.
            Anger and bitterness don't usually spring up from nowhere. They are cultivated when conditions are unjust or unfair - or at least perceived that way. I think there's a cry behind every angry or bitter person that says, 'this isn't the way the world was meant to be.'
            Now admittedly some people hold onto anger and bitterness when there really is no need for it. Their ideas of what's fair are heavily slanted to what they want. Often people see any bad treatment towards themselves as unfair, but fail to see how what they want would be unfair for someone else.
            But often it is warranted. Sometimes life really is unfair. It was unfair that people were captured and made slaves. It was unfair that people were treated as second-class citizens simply because of the colour of their skin. It was unfair that Europeans thought they could take the Australian Aboriginal peoples' land just because they wanted it and it wasn't being cultivated according to European ideas. It was unfair that women could not own their own property, go to university or vote.
            I could go on. Our history is filled with situations where people were treated unfairly.
            And where there are real situations of injustice, I believe anger is not only an acceptable response, but a desirable one.
            What's the alternative? We shrug our shoulders, say 'well life isn't fair' and continue on as we always have.
            Many of the situations listed above have been changed (even if they still might have some way to go before real justice is happening). And they weren't changed by apathetic people. They were changed by angry, maybe even bitter, people. And I say thank God for their anger and bitterness.
            While the situations above may have been changed, there are still many unjust conditions in the world. It is not fair that some of us get to live in luxury while people in other countries starve. It is not fair that people in western countries are conditioned to desire many "things", which neither they nor the earth can afford. It is not fair that we treat economic growth as more important than a healthy planet for future generations. It is not fair that our natural resources, the diversity of our plant and animal life and places of natural beauty are disappearing, so that those who come after us will not have the same opportunity to enjoy them as we do. It is not fair that our whole society seems to be centred on what we spend or buy, leaving those with little money feeling worthless. And it is not fair that, at the same time, the take-home pay of many people is getting less and less as companies seek to increase profit.
            Maybe I'm just bitter because I don't earn a lot. Maybe I'm just angry because this society fails to place the same value on nature as I do. Maybe I'm too busy dreaming of a better world that doesn't exist and I should just realise that this is the way life is and I better put up with it.
            I am angry. Truth be told, I'm even a little bitter. But I believe that anger and bitterness is telling me something. It's telling me that this may be the way the world is, but it's not the way it was meant to be.
            I am a woman. I vote, go to university and own my own house (even if it is mortgaged). We take all those things for granted now. But once upon a time, they were only a dream. Some people saw the way the world was and said that's not the way the world is meant to be. Maybe they were angry. Maybe they were bitter. But if it wasn't for their anger and bitterness, would they have even imagined a different world than the one they lived in? Or even if they did, would they have tried so hard to change things?
            Of course, just because someone is angry doesn't give them the excuse to act out their anger in a negative way. When we think angry, we often think violence (whether physical or verbal). And it is very easy, when we are angry or bitter, to act inappropriately. But anger can also be expressed in peaceful and loving ways. No matter how angry we are with people, we should still show them love and compassion.
            Some people have trouble accepting an angry God. They prefer the loving God to the angry one. But to me, a loving God has to be angry. How could a loving God see what we are doing and just not care? When faced with injustice, what other response is there but anger? A loving God cannot be apathetic or indifferent. And what exactly would a caring response look like if it didn't involve anger of some sort?
            Bitter, no. That's a human failing. But maybe we can use our bitterness to identify situations of injustice in our own world. And maybe we should learn to listen to other people's bitterness, instead of seeing it as something they just need to get rid of. And when we're angry, or other people are angry, maybe we should at least ask ourselves whether God might be angry too. Maybe the different world we imagine is not quite so impossible after all. Maybe the reason we think this isn't the way it should be is because it's not the way God wants it to be. He is just waiting for someone to get angry enough to do something about it. 


Monday, January 30, 2012

Schools - too focused on the academic? A response to a Mama Mia article


Schools - too focused on the academic?

Recently, Mama Mia published an article saying that parents expect teachers to be substitute parents. The article said that teachers should be responsible for things like grammar and mathematics, while parents should 'mould the manner of the child.' You can find the original article here: http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/teachers-to-parents-raise-your-own-damned-kids/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=%24%7Bemail%7D&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FKsWc+%28%24%7BMamamia+-+rss%7D%29.

To a certain extent, I agree. Parents do need to take responsibility for their own children. It is inappropriate and unfair to expect teachers to raise their kids. And any parent who leaves the raising of their child to a school cannot complain if their children don't turn out the way they want them to.

However, I do think the focus schools place on the academic is not doing our children any favours. No matter how well you know your reading, writing and arithmetic, if you don't know how to get along with others, behave in certain situations and deal with your emotions, you're not going to go far. In fact, it is these life skills that actually the more important than academic results. They help people to succeed in a career and contribute to society. It also affects how people treat our planet, the people in it - and themselves. Ultimately, a person's test results will not bring themselves or others much joy. How they live in the world will.

So why not just leave that part of life to the parents and let the schools focus on the academic part?

First, children spend six hours in school, more when you add in travelling time and homework. Very few parents would have the time to spend six hours teaching their children values and life skills, once this time for school is taken out. Admittedly, these kinds of life skills are often woven throughout other activities. But even then, children will always receive more academic training than they do values or life skills training.

Also, the compulsory nature of school and the focus on tests like NAPLAN tells kids that academic performance is important. They are unlikely to feel the same about what their parents are trying to teach them. The weight given to academic results actually changes children's values, because they have been taught from a very early age that it's how well you read and write that really matters in life. Children need to be taught that their behaviours, values and attitudes matter too. No matter how much a parent tries to instil this in their children, if they're hearing opposite messages from elsewhere, then children will have difficulty fully accepting this.

Perhaps most importantly, teachers have far more opportunity to see how a child behaves with other people than the parents do. They are better placed to notice a problem and guide them through a situation. One of my sons is very shy and has trouble making friends. While I am constantly working with him on this, I am limited by the fact that, when he's around people of his own age, I'm not usually around. As there are children with learning difficulties, there are also children with social difficulties. It would be good to see them get the same assistance and guidance as those who don't do well on tests.

I don't want to suggest that schools are only focused on the academic. Schools do care about values. They do deal with behaviour problems. At least the schools my kids go to do. I'm sure other schools are the same. But in a world where schools are judged on their NAPLAN results, obviously they're going to pay more attention to academic learning than life learning. And in my opinion, life learning is more important. 

Ultimately, it is the parent's responsibility to raise their children. And I for one don't want to leave all that important training to a school. However, the saying goes that it takes a village to raise a child. Shouldn't then both parents and schools be involved in ensuring that we raise children who have all the necessary skills to help them succeed in life? A school must be judged by more than how well their students do in tests. 


Wednesday, January 25, 2012

To love is to feed


I have previously posted a different version of this piece. However, as my grandmother passed away last Thursday, and it was her funeral today, it seemed like a fitting tribute to repost it. 


To Love is to Feed


When my sister and I stayed at my grandmother’s place as children, she would let us collect the eggs from her chickens. It’s possible that checking for eggs originally started as a chore, as something we were meant to do. For me, at least, it soon turned into a privilege. We were only meant to check once a day, but I would go out there every hour or so. ‘Please, Grandma,’ I would beg, ‘Please can I check for eggs again.’ My grandmother would say something in Ukrainian that I didn’t understand, but she would always let me go.

Sometimes my sister came with me. Sometimes I went alone. Out the back-door, into the garden filled with flowers and fruit; beautiful flowers, potted flowers, colourful flowers, strange looking flowers, flowers that scared me because they were always surrounded by bees. I never learned all their names. Even if I asked my grandmother to name each one, I would have forgotten the first one by the time she reached the last.

Past the two cherry trees that, when the cherries were ripe, provided as much fun as five children could have in the days before Nintendo. My three cousins, my sister and I would spend hours eating cherries, climbing for cherries, spitting pips at each other until it looked as if our clothes had measles. Cherry time was a special time, a seasonal time, almost a festival time.

These days, we mark our calendars with yearly events like Red Nose Day or  Jeans for Genes or holidays that have been around a long time, but only recently become commercialised. Easter, Valentines, Christmas. We turn a page in our calendar and get ready by spending hours in shopping malls. We sigh with relief when they’re over, because we have finished with the buying, finished with the giving and finished with the stress for another year. Holidays and festivals are nothing new, but they seem to have shifted to something different than what they once were. They used to be about marking the seasons, celebrating harvests and enjoying fruit that is here now, at this moment, but will be gone in a month or two. When we were children, part of the appeal of cherry season, was that it did not last all year. It was like Christmas. We enjoyed it while we could.

After passing the cherry trees, I walked by the abundant garden; as generous as my grandmother. Its edges overflowed with too much food to stay, too much food to eat, too much food to cook and often too much food to give away. I heard many an argument between my grandmother and my mother, over the subject of zucchinis. My grandmother would always be telling my parents they had to take some zucchinis. My mother would explain that we had zucchini plants and already more than enough for our use. My grandmother would say that even though we had zucchinis, we probably needed more. My grandmother always thought that people should have more.

The old cliché says ‘as happy as a child in a candy store’. Children in candy stores have no idea what true happiness is. For nothing beats the happiness of a child in a vegetable garden, where the tomatoes are eaten straight from the vine, the peas are eaten straight from the pod, the strawberries come with dirt attached and you can pick vegetables and take them to your grandmother, who will cook them into something you will eat that night.

Next I would walk along the path and pass the shed, where you pulled lights on with a cord, not a switch, and that always smelled of potatoes, onions, dirt and tools. It sounds uninviting, but I thought of it was a welcoming place. This was where my grandmother kept the jars for her pickles and canning. This was where she cooked potato pancakes, though I never quite figured out why. It was often dusty and messy and unsorted. But it felt real, like a place that never pretended to be anything other than what it was. I have never been to the Ukraine. As a child I used to picture it as a big place, filled with red and black squares, colourful easter eggs, religious icons and women in scarves. And underneath the overpowering smell of cabbage and onion cooking, I would always imagine the faint scent of that shed.

Finally I was at the chickens. If no eggs were there, I felt deflated, despite the fact that I had probably checked for them less than hour beforehand. If there was one, I was as happy as pampushky swimming in sugar. I wanted to run back to my grandmother and show her my find. But an egg was precious. It had value. So I would walk, carefully and deliberately back to the house, watching that egg the whole way.

My grandmother liked to cook big meals. She had to give people food, and lots of it. It was part of who she was. To live, to love, was to feed.

Each mealtime involved a variety of dishes, filling up the entire dining room table and usually spilling out into the kitchen. Often we thought we had finished the meal, only to find there was another five or so dishes to go. Cabbage rolls, varenyky, stuffed peppers, salted herrings. Preceding it all was always soup, whether it was winter or summer. Often the soup was chicken noodle, but not always. My favourite soup was Borscht. The soup I could not stand was pea. My mother and aunt used to tell me that it was Incredible Hulk soup. That may have impressed my boy cousins, but it failed to work for me. Then there were the times when soup was a big bowl of mystery that seemed more like a dare than an entrée.

As well as the obligatory soup, all meals came with the constant refrain of ‘eat, eat’, or in Ukrainian ‘yisti, yisti’. I only ever learned a tiny bit of Ukrainian. Most of it is forgotten now. The word for ‘eat’, however, will be with me always. Even my children know it. If we refused to try a specific dish, she told us to eat. If we had space left on our plate, she told us to eat. If there was food left on the table, she told us to eat. If we did not have a fork on its way from our plate to our mouth, she told us to eat. If we had eaten more than we had eaten in the previous week, she told us to eat. Yisti, Yisti, Yisti, Yisti.

The biggest meals were at Christmas Eve and Easter. Each one was started with food that we had to eat, whether we liked it or not. Easter was not a problem at all. The beginning dish, the one we had to eat, was eggs from the basket of food that had been blessed by the priest. I never thought to ask if any of the eggs I collected were ever blessed. It seems likely. After the eggs, we had a bread called Paska with real butter that had cloves inserted into it in the shape of a cross. There was also cold meats, cheese and lots of other delicious foods. Everybody liked Easter.

Christmas Eve did not have the same universal appeal. First of all, we started our meal with a dish made of poppy seeds called kutia. A couple of my cousins did not like this at all. As they had to eat at least some, they would put the smallest amount possible on their plate. Following this, there was a vegetarian meal, including many dishes that were not that popular with us kids. Even though I love most of my grandmother’s meals now, there were times when I would have dearly loved to trade them in for some KFC – or Kentucky, as we called it then. Another tradition we followed at Christmas Eve was to set a plate aside for the people who had died, with pictures of them next to it. A little of each dish was placed on that plate. Sometimes I half expected my grandmother to tell those deceased relatives to ‘yiste, yiste’. 

The only argument I have ever had with my grandmother was over food. Her house is not that far from mine. When the children were young, she often walked past and every time she did she would knock the table and give them something to eat. A bowl of donuts, twisted pastries or sometimes chocolates or biscuits. I did not want my children eating such unhealthy food all the time, so I asked her not to bring them so much. So then, instead of knocking on the door, she took to standing on the footpath and calling until they looked through the window. When they saw her, she would beckon them to come outside, where she would give them food away from my eyes.

As soon as I discovered what she was doing, I told her to stop it. I got angry. She got angry. In the end, she refused to speak to me. Eventually I ended up apologising, even though I knew I was in the right. Or at least I thought I was. Though it was probably more a case where neither one of us understood the other.

Another reason why I did not want my grandmother giving my boys food all the time was because I did not want them to see her only as a source of treats. I wanted them to love her for herself, not what she would give them. I thought that food and love should be kept completely separate. It never occurred to me that maybe my grandmother did not see things the same way.

For most of my life, I had simply accepted that my grandmother liked to feed people. I never thought to ask why she did this. I never wondered if she had good reasons for it. If anything, I thought it was more a fault than anything else. Sure, it was good to feed people. But so much? And so often? And with such unhealthy food?

Revelations can come from the unlikeliest sources. Mine came when I was watching Masterchef. Julie was explaining to the judges her reasons for cooking. She said that, through her food, she wanted people to feel nurtured and loved. It seemed apparent that, to Julie, feeding people was a way of loving them. Suddenly I began to understand my grandmother a little better.

My grandmother did not grow a lot of vegetables and give most of them away just because she liked gardening. She did not provide us with huge meals, which she would tell us to eat and eat and eat some more, just because she liked cooking. And she certainly did not buy my boys treats just because she wanted to annoy me. She did these things because it was her way of loving us.

Food is not just food to my grandmother. It is precious. It has value. Even when it’s not done in a church by a priest, it is blessed. To feed someone is not to keep them from starvation. To feed someone is to give them something precious. It is a loving thing to do. Food and love are not separate for my grandmother, as they are for me. Instead, they are connected.

Once when my grandmother was visiting, I made the offhand comment that one of my favourite foods was her potato pancakes. Later that day, she came around with a dinner plate piled so high with potato pancakes that its height was larger than its width. It was the last time I ever had my grandmother’s potato pancakes. It was the last time I will ever have them.

I never thought I would ever say this, but I wish I had eaten more at my grandmother’s table, paid more heed to her constant refrain or ‘yisti, yisti’, For I did not realise that Paska, cabbage rolls, stuffed peppers, potato pancakes and varenyky would not be around forever. I can now have Kentucky any time I want to, not that I want to very often. It’s not so easy to go to the food court and eat some cabbage rolls. If I had just one of those old dishes, I would be as happy as -- well, as happy as a child in a vegetable garden.

Earlier this year, I attended a multicultural food festival. I looked everywhere for Ukrainian food, for something that my grandmother used to make. I could find nothing. I can’t even remember what I ended up eating now. I know I was not impressed. Perhaps it was for the best. My sister tells me that when she visited the Ukraine, the cabbage rolls were not nearly as good as our grandmothers. It surprised me, but it shouldn’t have. Even if the cabbage rolls were made in the exact same way as my grandmother, they would be missing an essential ingredient. I know it’s a cliché, but they would be missing love.

I have tried to make my own Ukrainian food. I have made varenyky that fell apart, and cabbage rolls that never came together in the first place. I had better luck with potato pancakes. They tasted quite nice, but they weren’t like my grandmothers’. I think they were missing the required amount of fat. Nobody cooks like my grandmother anymore. The health professionals tell us not to. Strange, though, that my grandmother ate like that all her life and she lived to over 90.

Last week, I bought my sons and myself some scones from Baker’s Delight. There was a chocolate scone, a chocolate coconut scone and a banana choc-chip scone and we all had a different one each. I gave some of my chocolate coconut scone to each of my boys so that they could try it. Then my youngest son tried to give me some of his banana choc-chip scone. A banana choc-chip scone did not sound too tempting to me, so I told him I did not want it. ‘Take it’, he said. ‘Eat it.’ I told him again that I did not want it. He told me again to eat it. Eventually I relented and took the scone he offered. As soon as it was in my mouth, he said, ‘I’m just like Grandma, aren’t I?’

I had never thought of it before, but he is just like my grandmother. He loves to share food. If I buy him a chocolate bar, there’s a good chance he’ll give me at least some of it back. Whenever he has a packet of chips, he is always handing them out to people. If he has a piece of cake, some of it will end up on someone else’s plate. When he buys a treat with his pocket money, he’ll buy something for his brother to eat as well. He loves to give food to people. Perhaps, like my grandmother, food and love are connected for him.

I hope so. Even though I may no longer eat the food my grandmother used to cook, there is a chance that I may see her legacy in the way my son loves through feeding. And who knows? Maybe one day he may even learn to make varenyky.
  


Monday, January 16, 2012

Seasons (of life and nature)


Every Christmas and Easter, I feel like the seasons are all wrong. They're right for Australia of course. And I have never had any other experience than Christmas happening in Summer and Easter happening in Autumn. But they're wrong in terms of the Christian year. When Christmas is celebrated in the middle of winter, the birth of Christ into a world of darkness resonates with the coldness and the darkness that people are experiencing. When Easter is celebrated in Spring, the new life that people see around them remind them of the new life that Christ's resurrection brings. I feel that in Australia we miss out on a lot of those connections to the seasons - and therefore to nature. The Christian days that we celebrate are divorced from the world around us.

Last Christmas, I gave my boys a raised vegetable garden. As we walked off to the nursery to buy plants, they were telling me about all the vegetables they wanted to grow. I had to explain to them that there are certain seasons for growing certain vegetables. Just because we can buy carrots all year round in the supermarket doesn't mean we can grow them in the backyard. To a certain extent, we do notice the season as we buy our fruit and veggies. Summer is the time for buying mangoes, for instance. However, the fact that we can buy certain foods all year round again disconnects us from nature and the world around us.

We do still have lots of reminders of what season it is. Even if I didn't know the date and had no idea what season I was in, I would still know it was summer because the air-conditioner is out rather than the heater, I have been watching cricket, the mangoes are cheap in the supermarket and I am buying back-to-school items for my boys.

However, despite these things that tell me it is summer, our world seems to becoming more and more disconnected from the seasons. For anyone who works in an air-conditioned office and drives there in an air-conditioned car, the temperature of their surroundings for most of the time will stay almost the same the whole year around. If we want to (and I'm sure many people do) we can eat the same food the whole year around.

The impact of the weather can hardly affect some people. If it's raining, they dry their clothes inside. If it's blistering heat, they sit in their air-conditioned houses. While the drought in Australia may have caused water restrictions, we still knew we could get water every time we turned on the tap. It's only if there's some extreme weather event that either impacts us directly or indirectly that we take any notice of the weather at all.

When Europeans first came to Australia, some of them looked at the Australian native trees that keep their greenery all year around and complained that there were no seasons. While the Australian landscape has since become loved by many (including myself) I wonder whether that differentiation between the seasons is important and whether we are diminishing it ourselves? Or is it the case that Australians actually have less need for difference between seasons anyway? Our topsy-turvy Christian celebrations and our evergreen trees mean we don't need the same amount of difference that perhaps people in other countries do.

As well as thinking about seasons of the year, I have also been thinking of seasons of our lives. I am not just buying back-to-school items at the moment. I am buying start of high school items. My eldest boy has finished his season of primary school and is beginning his season of high school. This brings with it both joy and sadness. Every mother knows that feeling of wanting to keep your children young forever. And yet, relating it to the seasons, I know that, while the blossoms on a cherry tree may be very pretty, they need to disappear before the cherries arrive. And a cherry tree's purpose after all is to provide fruit not pretty flowers.

In sharp contrast to this moving from spring to summer is the winter I see in my grandmother's eyes. She recently had a massive heart attack. She is getting better and has been moved from the high dependency unit. However, I know that she is old. Even if she does go home, she will not live forever. Visiting her in the hospital, I was reminded of the beauty of a deciduous tree in winter - the type of tree the first European Australians pined for, I suppose. Though all its leaves have gone, it has a splendour and an elegance not found when it is filled with blossoms or laden with fruit or losing its multi-coloured leaves.

Just as we recognise the beauty in these winter trees, we must recognise the beauty in people nearing the end of their life. It is a season, that is all. And as a season, it has its purpose and a place along with all the other seasons. We must not be so focused on summer that we forget to notice the beauty in winter as well.

If summer is the time of youth, vigour, fruitfulness and productiveness, then we as a society seem to want to prolong summer for as long as possible. The music videos, clothes and tween marketing encourage little children to grow up too fast. The beauty treatments, hair dyes and wrinkle creams try to convince people in their autumn years to recover the summer of their youth.

Gardens could not survive if it was always summer. And why would we want them too. Yes, summer is a fantastic time of year. But so is Spring and Autumn and Winter. I want them all. I don't want to trade in three seasons just to have one. There is so much I would miss. Whenever people ask me what my favourite season is, I say the beginning of every season. I don't have a favourite. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, they all have their good points. But that beginning of every new season, when you know things are about to change and you'll experience things that haven't been experienced for a year, that is simply wonderful. Summer all year-round, I can't think of anything worse.

I wonder whether it is our growing disconnect from the seasons that makes us hold up the summer of our lives as some kind of ideal. Have we become so disconnected from them that we fail to appreciate the importance of seasons in our own lives? Can we no longer recognise the beauty and the splendour of every season that we live through?

My grandmother has always been a gardener. Maybe that's why she continued to have beauty and grace even after a massive heart attack, lying in bed with many machines attached to her. Maybe that is why, despite being unable to talk, her eyes shone brightly as my son sat next to her and spoke. She understands the importance of seasons. She knows that she is in one and my son is in another. And both of those seasons are important. They both have value and beauty.