Mr. Happy Man from Matt Morris Films on Vimeo.

Today was Saturday (sabbath), my main “work” day, busy with events and usually filled with people, including invites to lunches…and my fledgling herbivore status was briefly challenged and compromised by half (!) a salmon cake that one of the church members had baked and whose hospitality I felt was more important at that moment than sticking strictly to ‘plant-based’.

Another thought was brought up by my wife this morning, and after the busyness of the weekend is over, it will become quit prominent. And that is PLANNING…

I have some books, there’s the Internet, so resources are available… But that will have to wait for another day.
Now back to CNN, remembering Whitney Houston, the muse of my youth, who died earlier today.

Yesterday my wife brought home a DVD from the rental. “Fork Over Knives”

I had heard about this film, something to do with plant-based (or vegan) diet, stuff that in my brain was usually promoted by do-gooders, animal lovers, and food saints. In my life, both personal, but more often professionally—I’m a pastor—I had my fair share of diet advocates, and the more militant they were, the more I reacted with that special blend of derision, humor, and a pinch of blazé.

But having finished watching the film, I repented and made a decision to try a plant-based diet. I had tweeted about this last night, and received a number of well wishing replies.

So today was day 1.

On my way home I decided to stop by a supermarket to put my new found resolve into practice. I bought some salads incl baby spinach, nuts, and bread. Not spectacular, neither cheap.
At home I made a tossed salad with home made dressing. I’m not a frequent food-maker, so this successful arrangement of leaves and oils filled me both with pride and nutrients.

My wife and daughter both ate it too when they got home. I must have done something right.

I’m trying to keep this up till the end of March, at least, and hope to journal (of some sorts) my experiences…quite a commitment on both fronts.

Here’s a picture of my purchases… ($50+)

I am not a fan. http://www.notafan.com/

I was asked to prepare a slide presentation of various countries and their flags, for a church parade of nations. Part of this preparation has been to jot down some information about the various countries, and I discovered a rather flabbergasting discrepancy.

Now, we need to take a step back and look at the larger picture. I am a pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist church, which is represented in almost every country on the planet. The administrative structure of this church is quite elaborate. There is the General Conference in Silver Spring, MA (USA) which is the world headquarter. The world church is administered through 12 “divisions” which themselves comprise a multitude of “union conferences”. These Unions are made up of conferences and missions. And each conference is a collections of local churches. Usually Unions are countries, or cover a few countries. The administrators of these Unions are part of the global (General Conference) executive committee, so they carry a fair amount of responsibility. The same would apply to the administrators of the Divisions.

The discrepancy that was so shocking to me is this. I grew up in Germany, which consists of 2 Unions and is part of the Euro-Africa Division (EUD). These German Unions look after a combined membership of about 30,000 Adventists. The total membership of the EUD is about 177,000. When I moved to England I moved to the territory of the “Trans European Division”, with a membership of roughly 110,000. Both European Divisions (the fact that there are two is in itself a conundrum) represent less than 300,000 Adventists. Yet there are 2 division presidents, and 24 Union presidents.
In my research today I came across the Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa. This country is the home of almost 400,000 Adventists. There is not a single Union Conference in the country, only two Union Missions (i.e. 2 Union presidents), and one “Attached Territory”. It was that last area that finally led me to write this. An “attached territory” is not much in the administrative world of my church. Yet this territory in the DRC covers more members that the entire Trans European Division. The DRC is part of the East Central Africa Division. (Remember both European Divisions cover less than 300k members) That Division has a church membership of over 2.5 million.

So I went to the General Conference online year book and looked at who is part of the GC executive committee. There are 17 representatives of the East Central Africa Division (remember 2.5 million church members), and 38 representatives of the two European Divisions (representing less than 300,000 members).

How can it be that at the highest level of our church Europe is represented numerically much stronger than the much more populous African continent? I have my ideas, but I give my church brethren the benefit of the doubt.

OK, I have to be fair…. there are three Divisions covering Africa. The total number or representatives from these Divisions at the table is 50. But they represent 6,700,000 church members. If the same ratio that is now representing Africa were to be applied to Europe, this would be the number of their delegates: 3.

[Disclaimer: I gathered numbers from the GC website and may have missed some figures; my calculations may be off; I may have overlooked some important factors, I am not an administrator; my conclusions and flabbergastedness are my own and do not represent an official statement or comment on the operation of my church]

So I got a new phone. And just that might be worth blogging about. But with this phone comes access to a world apps. (No, it’s not a fruit phone, but the other… little green robot)

So here I am, getting to grips with the new virtual keyboard. My old phone (another fruit) had physical buttons…

If/when I’m getting good at typing, I just might post some more, real, thoughts.

Until then…  (thank you spellchecker and automatic corrections)

This world island is not my home, I’m just a passing through… or so I believe the song goes. Due to Bermuda’s (lack of) size, non-Bermudian workers, like myself, can only stay for  a limited time—how long has been the subject of debates. But one day, we will have to leave.

However, until that day, we actually live here. And that creates an interesting conundrum. What, or where, is “home”?

Is home where one was born? I guess in days past, when travel and relocation was the privilege of the few, one’s home did not change. Born, bred, and buried in the same place. I left the city of my birth in 1982. Since then, I moved at least five times. Including Bermuda, I have six homes. Or do I?

Does residency count as a home? One can argue for or against that. Can I call a place my “home” merely by virtue of having lived there a number of years?

Having been a resident of Bermuda since 2006, I think it’s more than just living in a place. Does one become part of that place as well? When in Rome, do as the Romans—and mix with them. And with that in mind, Bermuda is “home” (for now).

PS: a lot has happened since my last entry (July 09…!) I need to write a few more posts to catch up

I am somewhat shocked to read about the reasons behind this beauty contest. Why would people need to change the colour of their skin? Have old European beauty norms survived this long?

But then again, why do we (white) Europeans like to throw our pale bodies onto the beach as soon as there is a bit of sunshine?

Attorney General Eric Holder said it like it is: when it comes to race relations, the US is a nation of cowards. (for full text see link above; Att. Gen. Holder refers to then-Senator Obama’s speech on race in an interview after his speech.) What made me wonder as I read (and then watched) the speech was, how far have we come in the church concerning race relations.

Basically, there seems to be a certain unease when it comes to discussing matters of “race”. Comments and conversations sometimes become more forced and somewhat rehearsed. They lose their spontaneity and ease—which they may have just had, while bantering about the Premier League, Superbowl, cars, or…. (I apologise for examples that may seem more male-oriented.) But as soon as the topic switches to race—or “religion” or, sometimes, “death”—there is an unease. Why? At first I thought it’s because white people do not like to talk about it. They think it is no longer relevant, with all the civil rights, affirmative actions, and now Barack Obama.

I think there is a profound discomfort that is often expressed in phrases like “but I didn’t own slaves” because we do not like to be identified as belonging to the perpetrator group. It’s the same unease I used to feel as a German when other Europeans talked about the war and (sometimes expressively) made me feel like I had started the war. In addition, most white people never had to directly confront racial issues. They live in a bubble of privilege that has largely insulated them from confronting such matters. After all, in America a white person (with citizenship) is an American. Black Americans are “African-”Americans. White is the norm. Even in our Bible illustrations Jesus is usually (mis-)represented as a man with unmistakably European features. If the world around me reflects “my group”, and rendered quasi “race-less”, then why should I have to invest effort into addressing “race” issues. Race becomes an irritant. However, we too easily forget who invented the “race” scheme, segregation, slavery (not even to mention the genocide on Native Americans). White folk never had to address, let alone digest, the mess they created.

Black people (and other non-whites) in America, on the other hand, have always known “race”. From childhood they learn  that they are different, and that the difference is a disadvantage. Race is a daily, unavoidable, reality. However, it seems that even black folk are ill at ease to talk about race. Not, of course, when they are among themselves; but when in the presence of people-of-no-colour, the conversation sometimes loses it’s natural flow, and, just like with white folk, becomes rehearsed.

These are generalisations, and I hope that there are so many exceptions that the exceptions will become the rule, and my general deliberations here will be sidelined as an exception.

What is saddening is that this trend is also found in the church. The Seventh-day Adventist church in North America is essentially a church of cowards. In the boardrooms of conference, union and division committees (I guess) we find a delicate and elaborate dance around the issues that still divide us—if they are addressed at all. How often do the “brethren” interact with each other outside the meetings, after church, during the week, in their leisure times? How often have we had the painful conversation about past (!) and present (?) racism in the church? Have we sat and listened to the person with a different experience than our own, and not just in the administration sphere… How many pastors mingle in diverse crowds of colleagues (not just members)? Do our kids play together, our wives sit and chat together? How many churches are mingling together across the divides? Are there any meetings for white churches during Black History Month, where State and Regional congregations meet and mix, and learn not from a text book, but from a real person who was there back then, marched, got hosed down and got up again?

Do we have the guts to reach across the divides? A nation looks to its leaders, listens to presidents and attorney generals, but a church ought to look at her Saviour, and be changed by Him. Do we have the guts to go there? Will we allow Him to change us from a church of cowards to a church of change?

This morning, in a newsletter from England, I learned of the death of a former teacher of mine, Dr Ronald Strasdowsky. Besides remembering him as a fine Christian gentleman, with a quiet and gentle demeanor that was at times severely tested by the vigor of high school students, he was instrumental in a decision I took in the late 80′s.

After finishing high school, I had to do national service. As a conscientious objector I had to do 20 months of social / community service. After national service I planned to go to university. Dr Strasdowsky suggested that I take out a year, and study abroad. He recommended a church school in England, Newbold College, which offered language courses in English as a second language. And I followed his advice.

Looking back over the last 20+ years of my life, I can see that the decision to attend Newbold College in 1987 was pivotal in my life. Had I stayed in Germany my life (and that of significant others at the time) might have turned out very different. This blog, if it would have come into existence, probably would have been in German. But I went to England, and stayed not one, but two years. These years were instrumental in my return to England in 1991, my final departure from Germany. Marriage, family, being a pastor in England and now in Bermuda–I doubt that any of that would have transpired the way it did. What if… what could have been, one does not know. But what is, and how it came to be, can be traced back to a single decision in the late 80′s.

So I honour Dr Strasdowsky. I cannot share with him now how his simple advice shaped my life, but I believe that one day I will have that chance. I thank God for both Dr Strasdowsky’s life and what the Bible calls “the blessed hope”.