“The hard truth is that the most basic aspect of our humanity is not our determination, our talents, or whatever we accomplished during last year’s resolutions. We are united by our fragility. We all need shelter because we are soft and mushy and irritable in the elements—and we will need so much more than a bank loan because, sooner or later, we are left exposed.” – Kate Bowler

When I was executive director at Mennonite Heritage Village (MHV), I had two types of people asking me about leaving a legacy. “What is the best way to leave a legacy?,” asked the first camp, while others asked, “Should we even try to leave a legacy? Isn’t that prideful?”

If it is about our individual efforts and heroics, then I would agree that sounds prideful. Further, it is extremely rare that a person carves out a legacy that lasts beyond one or two generations (why even try so hard, for something so fleeting). However, if we build into a communal legacy, it becomes much more certain to last as it will then be carried by the group to the next generation. Finally, if the focus of the legacy is on how God has helped our family, clan and people in the recent past and over the centuries while acknowledging our human shortfalls it fulfills what we see written throughout the Scriptures (see below).

Done well, there are several benefits in recollecting and commemorating our past:

A Morris insurance company is continuing a local tradition to honour truckers and make National Trucking Week one to be celebrated.

Rempel Insurance is hosting a honk challenge on Sept. 11.

From 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., the special event takes place outside Rempel Insurance.

“Come hock, cheer, and thank our incredible truck drivers,” they said in a Facebook post advertising the event. “Let’s fill the street with noise and appreciation.”

For many years I had the honour of serving as the Canadian co-chair of the Midwest Canada-U.S. Relations Committee. During that time, I worked with hundreds of U.S. state senators and members of state legislatures. Whether on trade, security, tariffs or other cross border issues, I was always confident in the longstanding relationship that exists between our two great nations. That isn’t to say there weren’t challenges during my time on the committee. Challenges related to country-of-origin labelling, BSE disease and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (which became CUSMA) were just some of the significant issues.

But through all those challenges it always felt that at the core of our discussions was a mutual desire to see the long-standing partnership between our two countries continue. And it was always described by elected officials on both sides of the border as a partnership, one where we built things together. Today it seems there is a desire for many American lawmakers to view Canada less as a partner in business and more as a competitor.

Those who know of my long-time involvement in the Canada-U.S. Relations Committee have asked me if I am surprised by the current state of relations between our two countries. And, truthfully, I am. Very. There is little that I experienced in my decade working with American and Canadian lawmakers that would have led be to believe that the relationship could deteriorate not only so much, but so quickly.

To be clear, in many ways the relationship between Americans and Canadians remains strong. This is demonstrated in many ways. One small example was the strong reception that the marching band from the University of North Dakota received at the Blue Bomber game this past week where they were performing at half time. Some worried that they might not be warmly received and yet Manitobans showed the class that one would expect.

A relatively quiet government directive affecting the Canadian Armed Forces was issued in July 2026. Despite receiving little public fanfare, it deserves our attention.

The prime minister and the Liberal government are attacking faith—especially the Christian faith.

The policy directive intends to, “define the boundaries of appropriate language, actions, and symbols during military ceremonies and gatherings.” What that means in plain language is that in the name of inclusivity, “religious specific language” is excluded. An example of what language is now excluded is the word God.

The directive offers exceptions. Some liturgical references can be used for instruction and education. But that’s only for the purpose of understanding those traditions. The other exception is with Indigenous spiritual practices being inserted into public services for cultural and reconciliation purposes.