gerrymander

New Blog

2009-07-03T15:07:00.001+10:00

My blogging focus has changed and so I have set up an entirely new blog, located here. Enjoy!

Crtitical, contextual thinking is not postmodern...or wrong...or "bad"

2007-07-23T14:28:00.000+10:00

I think this piece by teacher Peter Job on the continuing debates regarding the teaching of (Australian) history is an incisive analysis and and summation of the issues at play.

Job manages to highlight the contradictions inherent in the arguments of the conservative agenda (espoused most forcefully by John Howard and Kevin Donnelly), in that they accuse teachers of history of indoctrinating a 'black armband' version of Australian history as well as accusing these teachers of taking a postmodern, relativistic approach.

The reality is that Howard et al. are not against indoctrination, it is just what is being indoctrinated that they want changed.

Anyway, here's what I believe to be a great excerpt from the article:

The debate on history teaching is predicated upon two fundamentally different views of what history is for. Those who see history as primarily an intellectual discipline, a search for understanding based on evidence, see critical thinking as central to comprehension and exploration of the past, providing students with a moral compass with which to understand and question the present.

The debate on history teaching is predicated upon two fundamentally different views of what history is for. Those who see history as primarily an intellectual discipline, a search for understanding based on evidence, see critical thinking as central to comprehension and exploration of the past, providing students with a moral compass with which to understand and question the present.

Far from being post-modernist, such elements have been a vital element in quality pedagogy from at least the time of Plato. The position adopted by Howard and Donnelly, in contrast, is one in which the primary role of history is to engender a specific kind of national identity and pride in line with their own conservative preferences. Such a prism is hostile to the evaluation of evidence that is inherent in a critical thinking approach, for by considering different views it damages this project. Howard and Donnelly are not only hostile to what they call a "black armband" view of Australia's past, but to the notion that the education system should contain a dialogue of different views.

How biblical is (much of) evangelical theology?

2007-07-22T22:17:00.000+10:00

I was doing some reading on Friday morning and came across this article by Ronald Sider. Here's an excerpt that I thought was rather challenging for those of us who are middle-class evangelicals...

‘Lest we forget the warning, God repeats it in I John. "But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and truth" (3:17-18. [RSV]; cf. also James 2:14-17). Again, the words are plain. What do they mean for Western Christians who demand increasing affluence each year while people in the Third World suffer malnutrition, deformed bodies and brains, even starvation? The text clearly says that if we fail to aid the needy, we do not have God’s love -- no matter what we may say. The text demands deeds, not pious phrases and saintly speeches...’

‘All the texts from both testaments which we have just surveyed surely mean more than that the people of God are disobedient (but still justified all the same) when they neglect the poor…’

‘In light of this clear biblical teaching, how biblical is evangelical theology? Certainly there have been some great moments of faithfulness. Wesley, Wilberforce and Charles Finney’s evangelical abolitionists stood solidly in the biblical tradition in their search for justice for the poor and oppressed of their time. But 20th century evangelicals have not, by and large, followed their example. The evangelical community is largely on the side of the rich oppressors rather than that of the oppressed poor. Imagine what would happen if all the evangelical institutions -- youth organizations, publications, colleges and seminaries, congregations and denominational headquarters -- would dare to undertake a comprehensive two-year examination of their total program and activity to answer this question: Is there the same balance and emphasis on justice for the poor and oppressed in our programs as there is in Scripture? If those of us who are evangelicals did that with an unconditional readiness to change whatever did not correspond with the scriptural revelation of God’s special concern for the poor and oppressed, we would unleash a new movement of biblical social concern that would change the course of modern history.’

From Jesus to Osama in just six years!

2007-07-19T17:56:00.000+10:00

I have been growing my beard for the past three months or so.

I have also spent the past four days working back at a school I was doing relief teaching at before we left for Kazakhstan. The standard comment being made by all people is that I look like a terrorist. Or, someone may say "I didn't know Al-Qaeda was working here *hee, hee, hee*".

Now, I am not offended by these comments -- they don't make me feel bad. However, it has been interesting to note the extent to which the dark, bearded man has become a stereotype for a terrorist.

Perhaps even more interesting is that six years ago, when I grew a beard like this, the most common response was "You look like Jesus"!

Perhaps ASIO needs a pharmacist?

2007-07-17T21:43:00.000+10:00

Nicholson of "The Australian" newspaper:

www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

Climate change as a global opportunity

2007-07-17T21:36:00.000+10:00

Why is it an opportunity? Because it challenges many of our existing modes of thought and gives us an opportunity to us to re-visit and re-think many matters related to our Christian responsibilities.
• Climate change challenges our understanding of the nature of our responsibility to the global environment and the way that the world relates together as a community of nations and peoples - in politics and international relations.
• Climate change asks us whether the way we view ourselves a nation (or even perhaps, the way we see ourselves as a state) is helpful. Climate change questions modern nationalism.
• Climate change also gives us the opportunity to re-think about the way we exercise our ethical responsibility in the world – which is very ‘tribal’.
• With climate change we can re-evaluate the meaning of being stewards of God’s creation and we can look again at the spiritual nature of our relationship with the world.
• Climate change asks serious questions not only about the extent of our consumption of the earth’s resources, but it also about the spiritual meaning of our need to consume and live and travel as we do.
• It challenges our understanding of economics in relationship to the environment.
• Climate change also raises questions about the environmental, social and spiritual future of the world. In short, it raises questions about the nature of our hope and suggests that should re-visit our understanding of the implications of believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Brian Edgar and Mick Pope, "Climate Change: Problem or Opportunity? Understanding Climate Change in the Context of the Gospel", June 2, 2007.

Proof that YouTube will allow anything on its channels

2007-07-17T10:25:00.000+10:00

I take back what I wrote here about John Howard not being in touch with the younger generation. He didn't want to lend his identity to MySpace, but it seems the PM is happy to share his thoughts about climate change with YouTube watchers.

In other words, no one gives a rip

2007-07-16T20:45:00.000+10:00

I was just looking through at the Sydney College of Divinity's "Research Degree Program's User's Guide" (otherwise known as a "handbook") and found the following information for prospective research degree students amusing:

You will be immersing yourself in a very limited area of research which you may find, to your surprise, is not to everyone’s taste or interest. Your spouse, family and friends will not always be on your wavelength, and may offer less than warm support as you spend yet another weekend or week or holiday period poring over books, chasing down yet another reference, taking notes, revising chapters and thinking things through. Your friends and family alike may not share your passion for the topic, nor be too sympathetic to your complaints about supervision, library facilities, lack of time and other typical areas for a whinge and a whine. Neither your workplace nor your boss will necessarily be overly enraptured by your studies, no matter how much you see their relevance. Even your pets may find your behaviour a bit odd, though they are usually understanding.

John Howard out of touch with young people

2007-07-15T19:41:00.000+10:00

It was reported last week - here and here - that prime minister John Howard is "out of touch" with the problems Australian society is facing.

Moreover, some may suggest that John Howard is unable to relate to the younger generation.

Comparing recent polling with Newspolls from previous years gives a good indication that younger voters have taken to the fresh blood of Kevin Rudd.

If we go back to the year the Coalition was elected to form government, the statistics suggest that John Howard - as leader of the Liberals - was almost as attractive to the young as the older:

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? 1

	18-24	25-34	35-49	50+
	%	%	%	%
COALITION Apr-Jun 1996	47	50	49	58
ALP Apr-Jun 1996	39	36	40	33

If we then jump to 1999, the year after Howard was re-elected despite Beazley gaining 51% of the primary vote in the 1998 "GST election", we still see Howard as being attractive to young voters:

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? 2

	18-24	25-34	35-49	50+
	%	%	%	%
COALITION Apr-Jun 1999	43	39	40	46
ALP Apr-Jun 1999	37	47	45	41

After this, we can jump all the way to 12 months ago and find that Howard was seen as at least as attractive to young people as Kim Beazley (the stats change from being divided into 18-24 and 25-34 age groupsnto simply 18-34) :

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? 3

	18-34	35-49	50+
	%	%	%
COALITION Apr - Jun 2006	38	38	47
ALP Apr - Jun 2006	38	41	38

And then the most recent statistics suggest that Kevin Rudd is significantly more attractive to the younger generation than John Howard. Among the older voters, however, Howard essentially maintains his appeal:

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? 4

	18-34	35-49	50+
	%	%	%
COALITION Apr-Jul 2007	30	35	44
ALP Apr-Jul 2007	53	50	45

Of course, if you want real evidence that John Howard - and not Kevin Rudd - is out of touch with the younger generation, here it is:

MySpace today launched its Impact channel for politicians and non-profit organisations, but don't expect to add the Prime Minister, John Howard, to your friends list. [he doesn't have one!]
Labor politicians outnumber Liberals two-to-one on the new channel...

...Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, who on his MySpace profile lists Simon and Garfunkel, Vivaldi and John Williamson among his favourite musical acts, said MySpace and the internet was an "enormously transformational technology" and "a good shot in the arm for Australian democracy".
He described MySpace as the "public meeting space of the 21st century", and said the Impact channel provided "an extraordinary new public space for people to participate in the democratic process".

Hit-mania

2007-07-15T17:56:00.000+10:00

Does anyone know if John Safran vs God is being shown in the States at the moment? I have been getting many more hits than usual (they are still embarrassingly few!) -- almost all of them from "john safran v god" or "john safran bob larson" or "john safran exoricism" search engine results.

From Canberra

2007-07-11T16:33:00.001+10:00

The ANZATS conference on Public Theology has provn to be a thoroughly stimulating experience so far. It has been interesting for me to reflect on many of the ideas presented from the perspective of someone from a non-conformist tradition. For the most part, the participants - and certainly the presenters - are from mainline denominations. It occurred to me after a number of presentations that the pain of a declining church was far more acute for these people. In a sense I could understand this and found myself feeling for these people who have made such large commitments to these institutions. Yet, despite this, I caught myself reacting on many occasions to suggestions being made which, to me, seemed to be about re-establishing the institutional Church's place of importance in society. This is not what making theology public is about for me.

It has been one of those conferences where there is just so much to process -- I really needed someone I knew well to dialogue with during the break times. But, I have met some very interesting and extremely intelligent people.

I am about to leave for the conference dinner which should be a good opportunity to speak with some of the other participants. I am looking forward to returning home to my darling Anouchka!

Cold Canberra

2007-07-06T19:11:00.000+10:00

I will be at the ANZATS conference for most of this week. The program looks very, very interesting so I am looking forward to it. I am not sure how much blogging I will be able to do – I am leaving the laptop behind and I don’t know what kind of internet access I will have.

Back to suburbia

2007-07-04T11:18:00.000+10:00

We have arrived back in Australia after 12 months overseas. In fact, we have arrived back to suburban life 30km from Brisbane city.

Just a short walk through the estate, the shopping centre is being enlarged. In the immediate vicinity of this shopping complex, three car yards have appeared as have a host of smaller commercial offices and businesses. It appears most, if not all, are chains rather than small businesses.

This is, like it or not, the way suburban estates are: life surrounds the places of consumption.

Today, I read a short article by Valerie Weaver-Zercher, “Jesus of the Cul-de-Sac”.

Importantly, Weaver-Zercher acknowledges that suburbia is a far more complex and diverse reality than the stereotypes suggest. I think for any of us who have lived – and tried to minister – in the suburbs, this is a welcome addition to the analysis of suburbia. As I have argued previously, this does not ‘cancel out’ the other reality that there are commonalities to suburban life – at least in terms of the dreams (vision) and aspirations (goals) of its inhabitants (developers).

The problems of suburbia, like anywhere, are many. While I sense there is sometimes a more defensive response to critiques of suburbia than urban and rural areas – possibly because it is home to so many (“mainstream”) people – these are necessary if we as Christians are to understand how to be a redeeming community.

Nevertheless, the damning, defeatist critiques offer no help or encouragement for those of us placed in these areas between city and country. Weaver-Zercher quotes author of Suburban Christian, Alan Hsu: "The difference is that we as Christians have a theology of redemption…There is hope for the suburbs, just as there is hope for the city and hope for the country." In an era where Christians are increasingly disappointed in the world’s shallow promises of wealth and prosperity and the mega-church’s promise of success, the temptation for pastors may be to leave their suburban flocks for something more edgy. Yet, being guided by a theology of redemption (which is, of course, an extension of the more common evangelical focus on individual’s redemption) could, perhaps, motivate and encourage suburban pastors that ministry in the ‘burbs is exactly what is needed and, importantly, that it is not a futile endeavour.

While the places of consumption in suburbia are (physically) conspicuous, the (spirituality) hope they offer is painfully shallow and temporary. The church in suburbia needs to be countercultural in this way: unlike Christendom, it may be inconspicuous, yet it must be a community that exemplifies a deep, abiding hope.

Lord, may your redemptive purposes ignite our theologies.
For the men and women leading the endeavour to love and redeem the suburbs,
may you grant creativity, wisdom, discernment, patience, grace and resolve.

No blogging

2007-06-17T18:42:00.000+10:00

Been without Internet access the past week or so. Many things I'd like to write about, but I'm travelling for the next two weeks...will see if I get some time to post something. Will be back in early July otherwise!

Living as exiles

2007-06-07T21:41:00.000+10:00

Last weekend, I watched a 50-minute Christian documentary on Christianity in China. The interviewees had all spent time in jail – mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. Most, if not all, mentioned that, when told to repent (a peculiarly religious term!) and support the secular communist state, they refused because ‘God is the only one I serve’. One man made the comment that in most things, he believed it was right (ie. biblical) to abide by the rules of the State, but not when one’s allegiance was threatened. In the face of persecution, the interviewees spoke of their reliance on God. This dependency on God was a strong theme running throughout the episode.

Yesterday, I ploughed my way through a fairly heavy article – “Witness, Democracy and Civil Society: Reflections on John Howard Yoder’s Exilic Ecclesiology”, by Richard Bourne. Here too, Bourne, in his discussion of Yoder’s ecclesiology, notes the importance of dependence on God. In a section titled, “Exile and Ecclesiology”, Bourne writes, ‘[t]he sense of radical dependence on YHWH that marks the identity of Israel is fundamental to its ability to live in exile.’ In a very real way, then, exile, which is prima facie an undesirable predicament, actually becomes a positive experience as God’s people come to rely on him.

The interesting thing to note about both these examples is how God’s purposes are played out in these situations of exile. Both the persecuted (exiled) Chinese and Jews experienced great joy as they depended on God amidst their trials. Yet, this is only part of the story. Yoder sees the Babylonian exile as ‘an occasion for the continued mission of the chosen people of God’.
Let me provide a little more context for Yoder’s thoughts. A key ‘paradigmatic’ text of exilic citizenship for Yoder us Jeremiah 29:4-7:

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

This text from one of Jeremiah’s letters to the exiles speaks of settling in you’re the place of exile and getting on with life. Yet, there is more to it than simply “getting on with life”. Rather, it would seem that Jeremiah is calling the exiled community to witness to their society, indeed, bless it.

Bourne states that, for Yoder, exile is ‘the continuation of the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 – “in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed”. He goes on to suggest that, ‘Israel is a peoplehood constituted not by the centripetal force of shared ethnicity, location, or political sovereignty; but by the centrifugal operation of divine blessing. As Yoder puts it, “Israel's very existence as a nation is not a self-guaranteeing institution but a recurrent gift of grace”.’

It is not uncommon to hear about the massive growth of Christianity in China. Those early Christians in China who were exiled and/or imprisoned responded in dependence on God. In turn, their radical commitment to him manifested in a movement that saw many blessed in turn. Christians in China became a people who witnessed to God through their sheer dependency on him.

Obviously, the situations are different in many respects. However, I believe there are some underlying motifs common to both. In fact, there are three major points that I wanted to try and get across from these stories:

1) The people of God should live in dependence on Him only.
2) Living as exiles dependent on God is political,
3) yet, exiled living leads to missional living.

This is important for us in the Western liberal-democratic tradition.
In the last post, I asked if China needs us. When we hear of persecution, we are naturally saddened, perhaps angered at the injustice and inhumanity. However, when we consider the state of the Christian faith, I wonder why we see it as important that we go over to ‘help the church’ or ‘make sure it’s on track’. The fact is that the church in Western liberal democracies is on the decline, yet we still think we know how the whole Christian faith/church thing is to be done.

It seems to me we need to reframe our understanding of being the people of God as being an exiled people. Many are starting to question whether, in the increasingly secular Western world, the exile is happening to us. The paradigm shifts spoken about in relation to post-Christendom indicate the exiling of the church from the centre of society to the margins. At this stage, though, I don’t think we can really say that the church sees itself as an exiled community. As such, I think it is the church that needs to understand itself as exiled and it needs to do so in a positive sense. It should see itself as a distinctive community that depends on God and witnesses to him. As exiles, we are to seek the peace and prosperity of the host culture, rather than see ourselves at war.

As I have written before, this has significant ramifications for our sense of nationalism. Not seeing ourselves as exiles leads us to depend upon the state for all matter of ‘necessities’. This reliance on the state, on the principles of liberalism or capitalism or socialism takes us away from reliance on God’s ways which involves the new Kingdom, a new social order. All this is not to say that we don’t involve ourselves politically, but that we understand our place within the political structures of our society. What Yoder helps us to understand is that God’s people are to be distinctive, yes, but importantly a witnessing community that is a blessing to others.

Australian e-Journal of Theology - Pentecost 2007

2007-06-05T18:30:00.000+10:00

I noticed today that the latest e-journal published by the Australian Catholic University is out. As always, there appears to be a number of interesting articles on offer. I hope to read the following:

-----------------

“Abelard’s Legacy: Why Theology is not Faith Seeking Understanding”

Ralph Norman

Abstract

It is often claimed, with reference to Anselm, that theology is faith seeking understanding. This is intriguing, because Anselm never used the word “theology” in any of his writings and was born a generation before the word began to be used in Europe. It was Abelard that introduced the word to the Latin west and gave it a professional and technical meaning: reasoning about faith that proceeds in accordance with the principles of methodological doubt. This method influenced Aquinas, and was harmonized with negative theology in his thought. Such styles of theological method challenge the common acceptance of the Barthian slogan, ‘faith seeking understanding’, in today’s theology.

-----------------

“THE IMPOTENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE FACE OF ESCALTING VIOLENCE: A GIRARDIAN VIEW”

Peter Stork

Abstract:

Rising turmoil confronts us with the inconvenient fact that the international human rights system is unable to immunize the world against escalating violence. This paper addresses the question of possible causes with the categories of Girard’s theory. Such an approach explains why the nations in their ideological and geopolitical confrontations paid only lip service to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and misused what was to be the measure of their conduct as a cover for their own complicity with violence. If Girard is correct, the failure of the human rights system must not to be sought in shortfalls of implementation but in the collective structures that underlie civilization itself, which, from the perspective of Christian faith, can only be healed by the revelation the Gospel brings into the world.

----------------------

“Thomas Groome and the intersection of narrative and action: Praxis, dialectic and hermeneutics”

Neville Clement

Abstract

Groome’s (1976, 1977, 1980, 1991) “shared Christian praxis” provides a conceptual construct to occasion the intersection of narrative and action. This is achieved through “a dialectical hermeneutic”, wherein critical reflection on present praxis and the Christian Story/Vision provides impetus for renewed praxis. This paper traces the philosophical origins of Groome’s conceptual construct in order to explain the way in which the intersection of narrative and action is facilitated. In so doing, exploration is made of key concepts of the praxis construct such as: the nature of knowing, dialectical hermeneutics and shared Christian praxis. An outline of the pedagogical activities which facilitate the intersection of narrative and action is provided. This analysis concludes with an assessment of Groome’s contribution and its relevance for the continuing practical endeavour of Christian religious education.

-------------------------

“Prophetic Dialogue as a Practical Theological Category”

Gerard Hall SM

Abstract

Stephen Bevans and Roger Schroeder suggest that “prophetic dialogue” is the most appropriate category or metaphor for Christian mission today.[1] This paper explores the significance and implications of “prophetic dialogue” for the task of practical theology. Whereas “prophecy” gives priority to the Word of God in scripture and tradition, “dialogue” highlights the importance of respectful human, cultural and religious encounter. Both components are necessary; their relationship is dialectical. Whether we are concerned with worship and liturgy, prayer and contemplation, justice and peace, the integrity of creation, interreligious dialogue, evangelization, inculturation or reconciliation, prophetic dialogue is a significant category for gauging the effectiveness and authenticity of the theological task. Panikkar’s “cosmotheandric” dialogue and the “triple dialogue” advocated by the Federation of the Asian Bishops’ Conferences are two possible avenues for advancing “prophetic dialogue”.

-----------------------------

The Religious Write

2007-06-03T17:50:00.000+10:00

Barney Zwartz, along with being religious affairs editor, is now blogging at The Age. His first post is here.

The following is from the introduction to his new blog:

Faith, according to the Bible, is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen''. To some, it is the arch-enemy of reason, but most people can't get through life without a bit of it (though not necessarily religious). As recently as 15 years go, many were busy writing religion's obituary but today its impact on the world is perhaps as profound as ever.

Does China Need Us?

2007-05-30T02:37:00.000+10:00

I was having a conversation with a group of friends this evening. One of them was telling me about missionaries in China who are being put in jail or kicked out of the country.

When I hear of such things, I am a little unsure of how to react. I wonder what others think?

For me, there are two main things that go through my mind.

Firstly, if it is illegal to preach and plant churches etc. then is it unreasonable to expect jail or deportation?* Surely Christians enter the country being aware of the consequences of breaking the law. Just because they are missionaries, should it make them any more exempt from the law?

Secondly, it seems a little curious to me that so many westerners are going to China as missionaries. Curious, but also, perhaps, a little arrogant. My understanding is that the church in China has grown significantly in the last 60 years - while a persecuted movement. As such, the growth has occurred despite limited resources -- including bibles. While some may argue that the quality of the growth perhaps could be questioned, the fact that it has continued to grow for such a long period of time suggests a good level of health.

So my question is, then - and it is a genuine question (I'm not merely trying to be provocative) - if the church has grown so effectively in this manner, why do western Christians feel they need to be in China?

* I am aware that there are legal gatherings, but of course there's also many underground movements

What is public theology?

2007-05-25T20:29:00.000+10:00

In response to my previous post, Michael asked some rather pertinent questions:

Could you also define "public theology" for me? What would a world where theology is public look like?

And do you think it is possible for a Christian/Church viewpoint to not be seen on the left-right spectrum? No matter their best intentions, others tend to label groups as leftists or conservatives or socialists etc. Can this be avoided?

I wrote a response to his comment and then thought it was probably something that was worth putting on the "front page". So, hopefully this helps a bit:

Hey Michael -- while there are, of course, a number of definitions regarding public theology I thought I'd post a couple that I like. I like them because they move beyond speaking of a theology regarding public policy or politics only:

1) Public theology is concerned with how the Christian faith addresses matters in society at large. It is concerned with the “public relevance” of Christian beliefs and doctrines.

(Clive Pearson, "What is Public Theology?")

2) ‘Public theology’ covers social and cultural analysis, workplace ministry, political involvement and social ethics. It deals with the public relevance of Christian doctrine and aims at overcoming the privatized and domesticated view of faith which has long restricted Christian influence.

(Brian Edgar, "The Gospel as Public Truth")

On the next questions...

Can labelling according to the left-right spectrum be avoided? Unlikely. However, can Christians engage public life straddling both left and right (not in the sense that the church must be centrist)? Absolutely.

I think the problem with Falwell, Robertson and co, was/is that they intentionally positioned themselves with the political Right. Recently, James Dobson led a group of Evangelicals who signed a letter to the Chairman of the National Association of Evangelicals in America, calling for the head of its Vice-President, Richard Cizik. The reason was because of Cizik's relentless campaign on global warming. This campaign, according to the co-signatories, was a distraction from the "great moral issues of our time". The fact is, the Religious Right in the US cannot support a liberal agenda.

In Australia, I don't think we have this problem to the same extent. An example of this is that both the Evangelical Alliance AND the Australian Christian Lobby wrote statements making clear that they saw climate change as a moral issue. Now, the ACL still lobbies on the standard issues of the Right - gay marriage and abortion.

It is an example, I think, of the ability for Christian organisations to speak up from a theological position, despite where the issue sits on the political spectrum.

On Public Theology

2007-05-24T11:45:00.000+10:00

Brian Edgar recently released a short paper (pdf) on the Evangelical Alliance site.

In the article, Edgar affirms the public nature that evangelical theology must take. He states,

"If theology it is not ‘public’ then it can be ‘a good secret’ but it cannot really be ‘good news’ for the poor, release for the captives, sight for the blind or freedom for the oppressed (Luke 4:18)."

Yet, he also warns of the 'political seductions' that evangelicals may face as a result of having an increasing interest in public affairs:

"One evidence of this sort of political seduction is the identification of ‘the Christian position’ with a specific place on the political spectrum...but being authentically evangelical does not mean having a particular position on a left-right political spectrum. That sort of approach limits one’s understanding of the work of God and, at the same time, is insufficiently radical in that the gospel must be seen as critiquing the most basic presuppositions on which our society operates."

I am passionate about seeing evangelicals in Australia develop public theologies. I have also written on a number of occasions to suggest that the church must NOT be seeking to develop political positions (the currently relevant example being that of Falwell's 'Moral Majority').

Howard and Education...a hark to modernity or a desire for absolutes?

2007-05-22T14:30:00.000+10:00

Thanks Steve for your post on Wednesday May 16 regarding Howard's education policy.

I agree with many of your observations. Your comments are insightful regarding his double standards. I understand why you would agree with Mr Howard’s assertion that education is far more that just equipping a country to be an economic powerhouse (here, here).

But I think Mr Howard is on the right principle when he says, "A nation can’t know where it’s going if its children don’t know where it’s come from.’"
I don't think this observation and a desire to define absolutes as a nation is a return to modernity as you suggested. I don't think I’d jump to that conclusion just yet.

In many ways it has been modernity that has devalued ethical, spiritual and social absolutes (something many people have levelled at Mr Howard as doing). But perhaps Mr Howard’s suggestion isn’t a return to a modernity world view but an indication of the internal yearning that exists for us that there are absolutes.

From a Christian perspective, that’s what we recognise in the incarnation of Christ that there are values and "absolutes” beyond what we can touch, see and taste (or rationalise, economise and quantify).

Absolutes and the acknowledgement of them doesn’t immediately require an adoption of a modernity world view. Given that there are absolutes that give a nation, community and individual definition; shouldn’t we be encouraging Mr Howard and our government to be look for them? Sure Mr Howard's version may not be "right" but I believe a healthy and holistic education policy (economic policy, immigration policy etc), may just be found if we encourage our government to recognise that there are absolutes.

Perhaps our greatest concern is not that absolutes exist, but that it’s Mr Howard that is defining what they are (or Mr Rudd for that matter). If that’s the case, it’s another indication that "WE" are looking for anchor points beyond the grasp of any one person.

Reflection on faith and politics

2007-05-18T16:31:00.000+10:00

Reading of Jerry Falwell's life made me think about how I would like to be remembered.
Being someone with an interest in public theology - how the 'Christian faith addresses matters in society at large' (Clive Pearson) - it struck me how important it is to ensure that contentious issues are engaged in a respectful manner.

One of the things that struck me as I read about Falwell was that he seemed to often view the non-Christian with disdain and disgust, rather than love. Now, I don't mean a patronising 'love'..."those poor, misguided souls" kinda thing. I mean having a deep respect for humanity and creation. I want to strive to approach political, social and cultural issues bearing in mind that I believe God to have created this world and humankind. Berating people doesn't seem to reflect this.

Furthermore, I wonder if Falwell became a right-wing adovcate ('politician') first and a Christian/pastor/theologian second. I have recently written an article I hope to have published which suggests that the strongly political nature of such a large section of American Evangelicalism has taken place to its detriment. I think and hope that in Australia, evangelicals have managed to bring their faith to political issues, rather than the other way around.

It's certainly a challenge I wish to remember and live up to.

Falwell: Political, Pastor...Person

2007-05-17T18:43:00.000+10:00

Not surprisingly, there has been much written about the recent death of Jerry Falwell. As I scrolled through a few articles in an attempt to find something worth linking to, I felt that none really offered the kind of reflection I was after.

Falwell was a divisive man and so there are those who loved him and those who hated him. Many of the reflections were testament to this.

Then today, I came across this piece at Subversive Christianity. In respect to the two polarised responses, it stated: "both are also unsettling because in their rush to vilify or sanctify Falwell, they don't bother to try to see him as a human being"(my emphasis).

It is a short piece. I recommend you take a look.

Conform to freedom: Howard and Education

2007-05-16T15:05:00.000+10:00

Today I got around to reading the second of John Howard’s ‘Rising Australia’ speeches – Australia Rising to the Education Challenge.

It would seem that there is at least one are of the education debate that John Howard and I agree on. One of my recent articles was a critique of the economic basis for the ALP’s “education revolution” policy. Interestingly enough, John Howard claims to hold a similar position. In his speech, John Howard had this to say:

‘Let me make a broader point. Education serves a much wider purpose than a material one. It’s about the rounded development of the individual…
… Menzies understood clearly the economic foundation he was laying for post-war Australia. It’s just that he would never have dreamed of seeing education in narrow, economistic terms.

No less than Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill, he would have recoiled at the thought of capturing the virtues of education by an R-squared relationship to GDP growth.
It’s here that we encounter the supreme irony of Labor’s mantra – where education is pressed into an almost soulless and narrow form of national economic service. Invariably, this ends up producing not just bad education policy but even worse economic policy.’

In terms of the rest of his speech, the classic tension[1] that has typified Howard as PM was there throughout: liberalism and conservatism.

Howard, before explaining areas of his government’s new education initiatives more specifically, said, ‘What’s increasingly clear from education debates around the world is that quality demands choice, diversity, specialisation, transparency and competition.’

This appeal to liberal ideology lies in stark contrast to his unrelenting efforts to standardise the Australian curriculum. Indeed, at the beginning of his speech, Howard declared, ‘I’m an avowed education traditionalist. I believe in high academic standards, competitive examinations, teacher-directed lessons based on traditional disciplines, clear and readable curriculum material and strong but fair policies on school discipline.’

Howard wants teachers to compete with each other for better pay and better jobs (rather than work in a spirit of collegiality), but does not want diversity and choice in curriculum. It is a great ploy. Teachers who want to be able to negotiate for better pay will know that they need results. As such, they will teach what needs to be known for the test, rather than educate students to be active and informed participants in our world. So, then, if the standardised exam requires students to be able to recall the “facts” of Australian Settlement, then that is what teachers will teach.

This step back in time, I believe, should be of concern to all of us. I would suggest that Howard’s desire to return to a modernist approach to education, based on certainty, is the wrong answer to what he may perceive as relativism gone rife. Moreover, this move towards standardised curriculum is, it would appear, part of what I think is his ‘nation-building’ agenda. Indeed, this is why he is actually more concerned with the teaching of Australian history than he is with literacy and numeracy skills. Howard claimed in his speech that education is ‘our main source of cultural and historical sensibility. A nation can’t know where it’s going if its children don’t know where it’s come from.’ In light of this, he will be speaking more on his ‘History Project’ in coming months.

The PM believes that ‘Education provides the seeds for an informed citizenry and the shared values on which a free, democratic and open society rests.’ The only problem is, Howard only wants a free and democratic society that conforms to his understanding of Australian history, Australian values and Australian society.

[1] I want to be careful to not use words like “paradox” or “opposition” which are more likely to set-up false dichotomies.

Technorati Tags: John Howard, Education, Australian Politics, Current Issues

Why the apprehension in saying "sorry"?

2007-05-14T15:05:00.000+10:00

Billy is a wonderful guy who I had the privilege of hanging out with for a couple of days each week for a semester. He is also an Indigenous Australian.

In a recent discussion about reconciliation and Australian society, he asked the following questions which I put to all of us:

For non-Indigenous Australians, is there a "sense of the unknown in what saying sorry will mean?"

For example, my perception of the Government's stance on saying sorry (I hope it isn't too cynical) is that they fear saying sorry because it may carry with it a financial implication for them to admit liability.

For the everyday Australian, I guess I'd be interested to see what may be holding them back from seeing acknowledgement take place?

I think these are important questions. We say sorry for things all the time, so why is this situation so tough? Perhaps the larger the "crime" the harder it is for us to admit our wrong. Then, of course, there is the corporate nature of saying sorry to Indigenous Australians.
Strangely enough, I think many of my non-Christian friends would have little problem with saying "sorry" as a nation, but have a problem with needing to repent because of the corporate nature of humankind's turning from God. For many (not all) of my Christian friends, their struggle may well be the opposite.

Anyway, while the readership at gerrymander is probably not large enough to get a wide response, it would be interesting to hear some thoughts. Perhaps you know of some research that has been done or have some stories of conversations you've had?

The Dynamic Nature of Christian Discipleship

2007-05-11T18:11:00.001+10:00

"Discipleship in John’s context [when he wrote the book of Revelation] meant resisting seduction [by ‘Babylon’] and enduring persecution [by the Beast]. Discipleship in Matthew’s context meant letting go of one’s identity and accepting God’s plan for a new identity [Jews including Gentiles]. We can see from these biblical examples that it is the context that determines the issues of discipleship. The text (the Bible) teaches us who to follow while the context teaches us how to follow Jesus.
Needless to say, when we use transferable or generic discipleship material, we miss out the important issues of a particular context that stand in the way of discipleship."

Minho Song, “Contextualization and Discipleship: Closing the Gap between Theory and Practice”, Evangelical Review of Theology, (2006) 30:3, 249-263, p. 254.

Technorati Tags: Discipleship, Mission, Contextualisation, Quotes

Election Year Budget

2007-05-08T18:03:00.000+10:00

I have been away from Australia for almost 9 months now. I have managed to stay up-to-date with much of what has happened. However, it is harder to feel a part of things like the AFL Grand Final and, well, the delivery of the next budget.

So, the space here is for you to tell us what you think about Costello's 12th Budget.

Do you think the budget will affect you? How - in what way?
Is it good for Australia?
Are you a businessperson? Will it affect you positively or negatively?
What about the poor and struggling...in Australia...overseas (foreign aid)?
Is it more of a political\opportunistic, level-headed and serious or last-ditch reform effort kind of budget?

...whatever else you want to say about it!

Reports on the budget can be found:

here (ABC)

here (The Australian)

here (The Age)

here (Herald Sun)

Creating a society, not a nation?

2007-05-08T17:36:00.000+10:00

Apparently the ABC has been running a “unforgettable speech” poll. Coming in at number three was a speech made by, then prime minister, Paul Keating in December 1992 for the “Australian Launch of the International Year for the World's Indigenous People”.

The following excerpts are from this speech. It is evidence of the strong idealism that under girded Keating’s time as PM. Some would argue that his strong idealism was a (if not the) major contributor to his defeat in 1996.

Interestingly, commentators have debated over the years as to whether John Howard is a) a pragmatist, b) an opportunist or c) an idealist. My answer is d) all of the above. I think that the noticeable pragmatism and opportunism of Howard is guided by a strong idealism. Yet, the difference between the two most recent prime ministers is so stark. Anyway, here's some of the Redfern Speech made 15 years ago...

“Isn't it reasonable to say that if we can build a prosperous and remarkably harmonious multicultural society in Australia, surely we can find just solutions to the problems which beset the first Australians - the people to whom the most injustice has been done.

And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians.

It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion.

It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?

As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

For all this, I do not believe that the Report [of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody] should fill us with guilt. Down the years, there has been no shortage of guilt, but it has not produced the responses we need. Guilt is not a very constructive emotion.

I think what we need to do is open our hearts a bit.

All of us.

Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done - the practical things.”

It seems so strange now that the prime minister of Australia would urge the Australian people to ‘open our hearts a bit’ and to ask ‘how would I feel if this were done to me?’. Such calls reflect a respect for the other. It concerns me that this seems to be the complete opposite of what John Howard has encouraged since becoming PM in 1996. The focus of Howard has been on 'the Australian self'. His approach to nation building and re-creating(re-activating?) Australian identity focuses on how we understand ourselves, rather than how we respond to others. We are encouraged to be a badge-wearing (flag-draping may be more appropriate) people rather than people who deeply reflect on what it means to be a society. Perhaps this is the point: maybe Keating's vision was one of a society whereas Howard's vision is of a nation?

Valuing the Family

2007-05-04T16:52:00.000+10:00

Recently on the ABC's Encounter program, there was a discussion about family and Jesus’ teaching on it. There is a section in the interview which I think adds something to the recent reflections here at gerrymander on suburban Christianity. David Rutledge is the interviewer, Brian Edgar – Director of Public Theology, Australian Evangelical Alliance – the interviewee.

-------------

David Rutledge: I wonder, though, if you see a tension there between Jesus' message and mission to the marginalised, to the outcast, and the church's allegiance to the family and the home, which is a very sort of cosy, middle-class, non-marginalised, non-outcast phenomenon these days.

Brian Edgar: Well it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be cosy like that, you're right. There perhaps has been a tendency, for churches which have stressed the value of family, to do it in such a way that families have thought that what they're meant to do is kind of retreat into their own family - build that up, have good times together, be entertained, make sure that they're happy together as a family.

David Rutledge: And protect the family first and foremost?

Brian Edgar: Yes, and protect the family, rather than stressing that as a family, you are to be ministering and serving the wider community. I think Christians are familiar with the idea that individuals are not meant to live for themselves alone, but for God and others. But when it comes to families, we tend to think, well, families live for themselves. But in reality, families do not - should not - live for themselves any more than individuals who live for him or herself.

Families should live for others, and so their lives should be outreaching to those individuals and families in the community that are marginalised and hurting, and be involved with them as families. I think that's a very important stress that the church should have.

David Rutledge: It's a fine line to walk, isn't it, because the Christian family has long been considered a kind of refuge from the more unpalatable aspects of the secular world. How can the family be open to the world and protected from the world at the same time?

Brian Edgar: Well, in actual fact I think there's probably greater risks in being too introspective as a family, and not being involved. If one is looking on the family responsibility as primarily being to build the family within itself, and to be separated from and protected from the world, I think that leads to a kind of weakness in the family. I think a family will become stronger if they can together, engage the world.

-----------------

Read the transcript of the entire program here.

Some reading

2007-05-03T15:10:00.000+10:00

Today, I thought I would provide links to some interesting readings:

Tanzania: MDGs a 'Bright Idea' Or Scam of the Rich? -- While the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a "bright idea", the "hidden agenda" of western countries makes it impossible for African states like Tanzania to achieve the goals, expounds actor (my emphasis) Rashid Mkwinda.
Self-interest in corporate compassion -- Tim Costello -- We will not succeed in eradicating chronic poverty unless business joins the fight. It has a critical role to play in lifting 2.6 billion people, or 40 per cent of the world's population, out of poverty.

Oxfam Coffee 'harms' poor farmers -- TWO Melbourne academics have lodged formal complaints against Oxfam Australia over the sale of Fairtrade coffee, saying it should not be promoted as helping to lift Third World producers out of poverty because growers are paid very little for their beans.

In defence of fairtrade (Oxfam response) -- "...Fairtrade can be said to have accomplished its goal of improving the returns to small producers and positively affecting their quality of life".

Consuming Desire - Simon Holt -- Perhaps living well in a consumerist culture is less to do with overcoming our desires, and more to do with allowing desire its reign. As followers of Jesus, we are called to an audacious hope, an envisioning of life in its fulness. Desire boldly!

Suburbia's Origin Story - Al Hsu -- The problem, of course, is that modern suburbia has departed from its original noble ideals, especially in terms of the vision of affordable housing for all. We all know that suburbia can be an extremely expensive place to live, that housing values have far outpaced income, making living in suburbia difficult for the lower and middle class.– the cost of living in suburbia now, for many, runs counter to the original dream. Instead of a place of peace and rest, a suburban home and lifestyle often generates financial anxiety and worry. It’s no surprise that debt counseling and financial management are now strategic ministries for many suburban churches.

Suburban Christianity II

2007-05-02T01:58:00.000+10:00

Most people in Australia live in suburbia.

Thus, it is unsurprising that questioning the values behind suburbia may result in some of us feeling a little defensive. I, like most Australians, grew up in suburbia. It is all I’ve known.

I question the suburban ideal (the Great Australian Dream) and the suburban package (North Lakes or Caroline Springs) because most of us live in suburbia. Perhaps it was not obvious from my last post, but I don’t wish to attack those who live in the suburbs.

Firstly, as Michael noted, many of us have not chosen suburbia, it had been chosen for us. Secondly, I believe that many people aspire to the suburban ideal (which will be different for different people) for good, understandable reasons. Thirdly, attacking suburbia isn’t constructive. Fourthly, as Hsu wrote, nothing is beyond redemption. I would add, nothing is unworthy of redemption.

So, if it was not clear from my previous post (if I had more time I would have given more context), I am not setting out to attack suburbia. Rather, I am seeking to understand it – after all it’s where most of us live.

I am certain that there are definite, albeit general, characteristics and values that are unique in some way to suburbia. Whether these were imposed by government or housing developers (post-WWII) or have been sought after by “the people” is only part of the discussion. Despite who initiated suburban lifestyle, it does not change the fact that there is a picture of suburbia as a safe, secure, comfortable (once) affordable, clean escape from the complex, dirty and risky city.

So how does this all fit with the church and its mission?

Firstly, I would argue that Christian discipleship doesn’t have the image of comfort, security and safety at its core. I see it as more risky and counter-cultural. If I am right, then it is reasonable to suggest that people who seek after the ideal suburban life are already, in some ways, at odds with the Christian way. There is a need, then, for the suburban church to critique some of those aspirations that may hinder a life of authentic discipleship.

Secondly, I need to make clear that I don’t think we are to abandon suburbia. I believe we need to critique and transform. Of course, this is not to say that urban or rural life does not need to be critiqued, but my focus here happens to be on suburbia.

Thirdly, I think that there is much the church can offer suburbanites in way of an alternative worldview and lifestyle.

The attractions of suburbia are ones that are temporary and - my guess is - often elusive.

I have been seduced by the picture of the happy family by the perfect lake on the billboards advertising the masterplanned communities. A quick drive or stroll through one of these estates brings you back to reality, though.

Indeed, for those who move to these “communities” believing they can find happiness may well find despair. When the reality that marriage still requires commitment, bills still have to be paid, bigger TVs are available, and the neighbours are never to be seen as they only enter the house through the garage, disappointment manifests. Perhaps there is nothing worse than a shattered dream. Yet, it is in offering alternative hope where the church can be at its best.

This is why we need to understand suburbia specifically. This is why we need to critique suburbia specifically. This is why the church needs to be in suburbia specifically.

Suburban Christianity

2007-04-27T12:31:00.000+10:00

A recent focus of mine has been exploring a little more on suburban life and spirituality.

As the idea of missional church continues to infiltrate the church, suburban pastors must grapple with a sometimes seemingly impossible task.

Individualistic and consumeristic forms of church have thrived in the suburbs. Critics would suggest this has been because the church has sought to capitulate to an unhealthy culture (essentially of selfishness) rather than transform it.

The emerging missional church is often characterised by community and action/service. Thus, it would appear to be the very antithesis of what the suburban church has known. Now, as a pastor or missionary, it's one thing to start something new, but its another thing to transition a church that has existed (in its own unique way) under the (generalised) previous model.

Part of the difficulty, it would seem, is that Christians have commonly moved to the suburbs for the same reasons as the rest of the community. They want to be able to buy a (bigger) house with land. They want a safe place for their children to grow up in. They want privacy, though this should be punctuated by times of community.

None of these things, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad or unhealthy. Yet, it could be argued that the problem exists in an underlying attitude of selfishness which is behind the quest for the comfort and security these things are designed to bring.

Nevertheless, one may also argue that there is a selfishness that exists to a lesser degree: a desire to care for one's family. Seeking to provide the best quality of life for one's family seems reasonable. Many people who have chosen to live in the suburbs may have done so in a bid to provide a better life for their loved ones. While this may still be seen as selfish and certainly as breeding selfishness, it is based on a desire for a better life for others.

So, then, how does a church challenge the suburban culture when it is intentionally part of it? Is suburbia merely a wasteland, without hope and full of despair?

Alan Hsu, in his recent book, The Suburban Christian, writes:

A mix of despair and hope is as good as any description of the suburban ethos. We are here in suburbia because we have some notion that it’s a good place to be, but we are beginning to question exactly how good it is for us. We find ourselves experiencing a kind of suburban ambivalence.

It seems that much of what we long for in life, whether community and family, security and shelter, love and happiness, or meaning and purpose, is embodied somewhere in the suburban landscape. Looking for friends? There are people here by the millions. Searching for a place to call home? Subdivisions as far as the eye can see. Need work to do? Plenty of jobs in suburbia. Want material stuff? Anything you can imagine is at a mall or big-box store near you. It’s all here.

Yet many of us still haven’t found what we’re looking for...

...Just as Christians have struggled to be faithful to God wherever they have been—in Jerusalem
or Rome, in medieval or colonial times, in agrarian or industrial societies, in urban centers or on the wild frontier—so too must Christians develop a thoroughly Christian approach to living in contemporary suburbia.

The suburban Christian ought not uncritically absorb all the characteristics of the suburban world but rather should thoughtfully assess and discern how Christians ought to live in this environment, without either capitulating to the culture or abandoning it by fleeing the suburbs
and relocating to the country.

Indeed the problems and challenges of suburban living are significant...But for Christians, nothing is beyond redemption.

Andrew Hamilton: Anzac Day celebrates humanity, not nationalism

2007-04-26T12:36:00.000+10:00

I thought this contribution to Anzac Day writings by Andrew Hamilton was both sensitive and challenging.

A couple of excerpts:

It follows from this that in the Christian tradition, at least, we should hesitate to describe Anzac Day as a sacred event. It is certainly not sacred in the sense that the cause in which the soldiers died was especially noble, or because the deaths of soldiers killed in war are more especially significant, or because this is a seminal event in Australian history.

From a theological perspective, it can be described as sacred only in a broad sense—because it is a human event, and all human events are places where God walks.

And,

From the Christian perspective any attempt to attribute large significance to Anzac Day and to wars is suspect. When we say that people sacrificed their lives for an abstract cause like victory or nationhood, we easily imply that their lives and deaths are given value only by the cause they serve. We lose sight of the preciousness of each human life, and equate human value with usefulness. Rhetoric about war is particularly vulnerable to this instrumentalising of human beings, because its core business implies that human lives are expendable.

“The Great War” & ANZAC day in the suburbs

2007-04-24T16:34:00.000+10:00

South East Queensland, it’s a long way from the battlefields that most of our diggers fought upon. In January I read through Les Carlyon’s “The Great War.” I found it a challenging read which got me thinking in surprising ways. Carlyon paints a picture of contrast between the naive excitement of the Gallipoli soldiers who left for “adventurer” and the soldiers who served in the grime reality of the Western front. Both were places of cost, waste and sacrifice, but for the solider volunteering on the Western front all the romance had long gone. They’d read the casualty lists, heard the reports, saw the returning wounded to know this was no “adventure.”

One of the things that Carlyon highlights is the propaganda war that raged over the two referendums on conscription. As the extent of the fighting came back to Australia, recruitment numbers dropped off and conscription was seen as the way to maintain reinforcements. Despite the desperate efforts of Prime Minister Billy Hughes, conscription never got up; the Australian Army remained a volunteer force right through the war. However with the drop in recruit numbers the strength of units had to be diminished. Units amalgamated so that commanders had enough men to fight.

Fortunately to compensate for this drop in numbers the ANZAC troops were commanded by the most skilful, meticulous and responsible commander of WW1, the Australian John Monash. Because of his amazing planning and care, the ANZAC’s were able to win victories and significantly influence a conclusion to the war despite their lack of reinforcements. They were at the end of their preverbal “little red engine” and just made it. Refecting on this, I have been asking myself what I can take from the ANZAC’s and especially in light of the Western front diggers.

If I had to sum it up, what stands out to me is their sacrifice. But it’s not a romantic sense of the word, but sacrifice that continues in the face of obstacle. This is a rare commodity in a consumer society and its not something you can conscript, it’s given freely or not at all.

My life is light-years away from those serving on the Western front. I don’t have to sacrifice much. The biggest challenge of recent days is to keep a bucket in the shower and keep my showers to less than 4 minutes due to the level 5 water restrictions! I ask myself (if I could take the pacifist question out of the way) if I would have volunteered as a Western front digger? But in light of the fact that my life has little in common with a WW1 digger perhaps a better question would be to ask, am I willing to reduce my environmental footprint for the sake of the planet? Am I willing to go without material “wants” to give to the millions of people in our world that live in poverty or am I willing to reduce our families work hours and income to create time for people and community in suburbia?

We’re all a long way from the trenches of Gallipoli and yet we all face the question of “staying home” or continuing to play a part in bringing about “victory”. As a nation we enjoy freedoms that were bought through the sacrifices of others, but what is our Victory? Our “Victory” is to continue to fight against self and the desire to just look after no 1. Our fight is to protect and champion egalitarian values, bless the poor and marginalised in our world and build healthy communities. As a follower of Jesus he said to me that I can be a conduit to bring his freedom to this world, to do so is for me to grow an “ANZAC spirit” that God makes available to us all.

Don’t listen to the voice of selfishness or to those who say, “stay behind it’s too dangerous”. Answer “the call” and go to the places of sacrificial service. The irony is that it’s in these places of serving and sacrifice we find answers for ourselves as well as freedom for others.

I hope you have a great ANZAC Day.

Howard on Climate Change: Could this be a winner?

2007-04-23T21:05:00.000+10:00

Recent polling continues to show Kevin Rudd as the preferred PM amongst Australians. While the next federal election is no more than a little over 5 months away, it would seem there is still a long way to go.

Recent research suggests that more than 75% of Australians consider that climate change is a serious issue compared with just under 40% less than 4 years ago. This is, of course, a major shift in public opinion.

Airlines have picked up on this. Virgin Blue now offers customers the chance to contribute to an off-set program. The money will go towards "projects including such initiatives as forestry activities, energy efficiency measures, waste diversion and recycling and generation of renewable energy", according to the website.

Reading the in-flight magazine of a local Kazakhstan aeroplane on which I was travelling recently, I was interested to see the president of the airline's introductory address. He acknowledged the major contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that airline companies make and suggested the company was endeavouring to adopt "green" practices as much as possible.

I read another traveller tell a similar story after flying with Singapore Airlines last week.

Kevin Rudd also picked up on this. He has been claiming that climate change is one of the key moral issues currently facing the world. Indeed, climate change was one of the key moral issues he discussed in his essay for the Monthly last October, along with global poverty and asylum seekers.

Considering Australians' changed attitudes towards climate change and Kevin Rudd's proactive moves to signal it as a key issue, it was beginning to look as though John Howard was losing touch with the Australian people. Howard has still not committed to signing the Kyoto Protocol. Yet, despite the polls, history has taught us not to write off the ever astute PM.

It almost seems as though Howard was giving Rudd a chance to play his cards before making his move. Today, Howard made clear that he believed the issue of climate change was something that Australia needed to address: “Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do,” he said in an address to the Queensland Media Club.

Yet, Howard is not claiming it as a significant moral issue, but an economic one. This is, perhaps, the way to win votes at the next election. While Australians may be concerned with climate change and education, they are mostly interested in whether the economy is running well. In his speech, Howard argued that "Any decision on a future (post-2012) long-term target [on greenhouse gas emissions] will be the most important economic decision Australia takes in the next decade."

Playing the climate change card from an economic rather than moral position is far less contentious and far more appealing to a society that is ostensibly increasingly individualistic.

This is not to say that Kevin Rudd isn't trying to play the same game, he is. His education policy is a key example of this, as I have written previously on this site. Yet, Australian's do not see education as an issue to be viewed with a healthy suspicion. The jury is not out on the value of education. Whether it positively affects Australia's economic growth or not will not change the view of Australians that education is absolutely important.

I believe, however, that despite the recent change in opinion, climate change does not hold enough importance for voters to swing the more conservative unless there is a belief that not dealing with climate change will have an adverse impact on the economy.

If Howard is going to retain office at the next election, he will have to campaign along these lines. He must persuade the Australian public that he is not only the best man to run the economy, but that he is not out of touch with the key social issues facing Australians. If anyone can do this, Howard can.

On faith

2007-04-20T15:54:00.000+10:00

I thought it was time for a little more Bonhoeffer...

“I thought I could acquire faith by trying to live a holy life, or something like it…I discovered later, and I’m still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. One must completely abandon any attempt to make something of oneself, whether it be a saint, or a converted sinner, or a churchman (a so-called priestly type!), a righteous man or an unrighteous one, a sick man or a healthy one. By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world – watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith; that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian (cf. Jer. 45!).

(“Letter to Eberhard Bethge, 21 July 1944”, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Latters and Papers from Prison, pp.369-370)

Being Veg

2007-04-17T18:54:00.000+10:00

Anouchka (my wife) and I are vegetarian.
One of the discussions we have from time to time revolves around what we should do when we have children.
We don't have any desire to eat meat ourselves, but should our kids eat meat either for health reasons or just so as not to impose our ways on them?

I saw this post by emergent kiwi last week - it's short and interesting, so give it a read. Here is the part where he talks about kids:

A conversation with a dietician and my family: I did not want my change of eating habits to negatively impact upon a young and growing family. A dietician told us that one meat meal a week, supported by good amounts of vegetables, provides a balanced diet. So if all the Taylor family ate less meat and increased the amount of beans, nuts, spinach eaten during 6 days, then I could go totally vegetarian, without disrupting our growing children, who could still enjoy meat if they wanted.

We're not sure we need to 'hear' from anyone else...this gives us the kind of answer we wanted!

The green commute

2007-04-16T12:48:00.000+10:00

From today's Age:

"Travel, whether it's for business trips or for vacation, is now shaping up as key issue in the debate about green business practices. Not surprising because staff travel is regarded as a big contributor to carbon dioxide emissions."

Read the rest here.

Does anyone know of changes their organisation has made in regards to travel or other 'greenifying' practices? What are they?

Leadership and the contemporary church

2007-04-14T15:24:00.000+10:00

"In many ways, the task facing leaders of mainline denominations and congregations today is to mobilize people for adaptive work -- that is, to help people understand the social and religious changes occurring in our time and to enter into new ways of being the church, knowing as we do that we are far from fully understanding our situation or knowing the particular ways we are called to respond. To mobilize people for adaptive work is to help them enter into that zone of risk where new learning and new self-understandings, as well as new ways of acting, can be discerned. This is not easy work. Most of us would prefer to take a regimen of pills rather than face death and resurrection. But it is promising work for which our faith, scriptures and varied ecclesial traditions provide rich resources."

Anthony B. Robinson, Leadership That Matters

Rudd and Education

2007-04-11T18:37:00.000+10:00

Today I had an article published at New Matilda. Within the article, I offer a critique of the 'Education Revolution' (pdf) policy released by the ALP in January this year.

Essentially, my quibble is that the ALP's education policy is unashamedly based on economic progress rather than the more altruistic motivations many educators I suspect have.

Then, I discover that earlier today Rudd released his party's policy (pdf) on literacy and numeracy.

While I obviously have no problem with a desire to improve education, I do have an issue with the basis of the ALP's policy. The most recent 'new directions' policy paper states that, 'Literacy and numeracy are the building blocks that an individual’s participation in society and the economy rely upon' (p.4), and that 'If Australia is to remain competitive in the global economy, we must increase the number of exceptional school graduates...' (p.5).

As I state in my article, it seems curious to me that there has been little substantial criticism of the ALP's new education policy. I wonder, do people just not care about why the ALP wants to improve education? Are we only concerned about what is being changed and maybe how?

Hirsch: what would i do with an established church?

2007-04-11T15:27:00.000+10:00

Alan Hirsch has posted his response to the question,

"If you were asked to steer a conventional, western church on a missional path and were given the freedom to utilize or reallocate all funds and resources in the best way you felt this could be accomplished, how and what would you do?"

Seemed to be relevant to some of the discussion that has taken place here recently.

Looking for Jesus: refugees in faith

2007-04-08T23:20:00.000+10:00

Barney Zwartz, religious affairs writer for The Age, takes a brief look into new forms of church in Australia.

This is it.

2007-04-04T08:13:00.000+10:00

Following up on an earlier post that I wrote last week, I’d like to share a story that has encouraged me in thinking about “What is church.”

This week I had a phone call from one of our small community leaders. They have, over the last 18 months been travelling with two people who they have been sharing their lives and faith with.

Sharing “life” has not just been the cerebral of faith, but the practical love of Jesus. Caring for their extended family members, providing practical care as well as answering their questions. This couple came to faith sometime ago in their small community, Sunday though was their first time at the Sunday Celebration.

Their small community leader rang to tell me what they had said about it. They loved the stories from different places, the testimony of someone who was baptised, the teaching/preaching and the songs, in their opinion “God was really there wasn’t he!” But I it was the next comment that really encouraged me from this couple who have entered a faith in Jesus through the love, intimacy and support of a small group of people. “Sunday was a great celebration, we got heaps out of it, but it’s our small group where church really is.”

Both of these people have started to talk about “what has God got for them” in relation to serving others, the goodness of God they want to take to their family and how they can encourage other believers. From what their small community leader told me, Sunday really helped them in this. As you can probably tell I went to bed super encouraged. Their journey reminded me of Acts 5:12-14. “… And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.”

You may be familiar with this passage. People who didn’t follow Jesus were in awe of those that did because of what had happened to Ananias and Sapphira and because of the miracles that were occurring in their corporate meetings. Despite their “Awe” there were constant new additions to those who were “saved”. In my opinion these “additions” were through the house churches, where they meet in homes and broke bread, worshiped and meet practical needs.

Like the early church, for many people our corporate meetings are places that no one “dares to join,” not because it’s a place of dramatic miracles, but because for many it’s a misunderstood, mis-concepted and a confusing place. Regardless of why, people don’t “dare join” us through our corporate gathering.

So why am I telling you guys this? Well I had to share it with someone, and it has encouraged me that there is I believe a valid place of the smaller and the corporate gathering that can provide a harmonious discipleship to the follower of Jesus.

Dave

What is missional church?

2007-03-30T18:12:00.000+10:00

Alan Roxburgh has written a short document providing his answer to the question What is Missional Church?

Thanks Andrew for the link.

Are Christian schools a denial of the Gospel they preach?

2007-03-30T17:50:00.000+10:00

In a piece published by On Line Opinion, Alan Matheson asks,
"Do Christian schools threaten the future of inclusive, publicly funded government schools; and are Christian schools, by their very nature, a denial of the Gospel they preach?".

Matheson writes: Christians are boasting of schools with “mountain retreats”, “heated indoor swimming pools”, “seamless resource centres”, “computer laboratories”, “basket ball courts and lovely gardens”, as well as “award winning libraries”.

The polemical nature of this statement is an indication of the tone of his entire piece. Thus, he does make gross generalisations implicitly suggesting that all Christian schools are like this. Of course, this is not true. Nevertheless, he does provide a challenge to Christian schools and the values that govern their practice.

The type of schools Matheson refers to are the denominational schools. Indeed, these schools are very much a product of Christendom. Nevertheless, there are many smaller, church and parent-run schools that have facilities inferior to government schools.

Yet, the reality is that education is being marketized at a rapid rate. For schools to compete, it is increasingly more difficult to exist as a low fee-paying school. This provides a challenge to smaller Christian schools. Will these schools continue to offer low-cost education to the community as a service?

All sorts of churches for all sorts of people.

2007-03-29T12:51:00.000+10:00

Last Friday I was standing around after a youth event. It gave me the opportunity to chat to a lady whose son had become a part of the youth group event we were both at. As we talked, she shared how she had been a part of a church that has gone through numerous issues.

The result was that she and her husband had left this community of people they had been a part of for the last 8 years. Since then, her husband has dropped out of any sort of church community, becoming embittered with what church is. She had tried numerous churches in an attempt to reconnect to a faith community. Two were too large, another not welcoming enough. Excitingly, she shared how she had finally found a church that had around 40-50 people in attendance. Her whole countenance changed as she spoke about how “friendly, real and welcoming they were.” I just felt like, “I had come home,” she said. I asked her a couple more questions about where she was at. As I listened it became apparent that the size (“it felt like family”), was very important for her.

It reminded me of another similar conversation I had years ago at my previous church. We were about to commence a new regular evening service aimed at young people. However to do this we needed people to change allegiance from the morning congregations to the evening. One particular family were struggling with this, reminiscing that they remembered when “Eltham was just a big family” and “We are not sure whether they we want to be a part of a church that wants to get big.”

So what is the right “size” church? 60 can feel like family, 600 can feel like you’re a part of a movement. My thinking about the church has been moving away from the “size” of the church. I have wondered whether it matters if a church is 60 or 600 at all.

There has been a lot written (and Steve you have been doing a lot more reading than me lately) on what the church should look like. My thoughts have been that asking the question of “what is the right size church” is the wrong question. It’s obvious that these sort of questions arises out of dissatisfaction and the perceivable lack of transformation. But whether a church is 60 or 600, can either be a place of real transformation? Rather, is the right question one of disciplship and where that occurs, than the size of the church gatherings?

I was interested in listening to Graham Cooke, who comes from a pentecostal perspective, where big meetings, moves of the spirit and expressive alter calls are the norm (not that i am disparaging that form of spirituality). Graham said that in his opinion the church needed to realise that change is more than just “laying on of hands,” rather it’s about the “process of change”. So whether we are pentecostal, evangelical or orthodox in background, is the expression of our group gathering the problem when we are asking what it means to be church? I don’t think so, rather I believe discipleship and where we are seeing the process of discipleship should be the focus of our attention. Thoughts, responses? I’m all ears. Dave.
PS- where have you seen real personal transformation occur?

What I'm up to

2007-03-28T14:15:00.000+10:00

It has been some time now since I posted something of substance! I have been writing other things and have thus neglected the blog. I needed to post something, so here is what’s happening:

I’m reading The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch which I should have finished by now but haven’t touched for probably a week.
I’m also reading The Message of the Trinity by Brian Edgar which I am enjoying so far.
I have been writing about faith and politics. If I had to sum up the focus of my writing, it would be on the appropriate nature of Christian involvement in politics.
I have been thinking/reflecting on our experiences in Kazakhstan and how we can share these experiences on our return. I have realized just how difficult it is to share experiences.
For some time now, I have been thinking about what discipleship means. Hirsch suggests that disciple making is the most important aspect of the mDNA of Apostolic Genius. I tend to agree. In fact, I wonder if all the mission strategizing becomes irrelevant if we can get discipleship right? Are discipleship and mission even different?
I have been checking out journals I would like to subscribe to once we get back to Australia, organizations I may like to join and conferences/seminars to go to.
We have been talking about what I’ll do when we arrive in Australia in July seeing as I have no job to go back to! We are almost certain that I need to pursue my interest in the area of public theology. This is really exciting though everything to do with these ‘plans’ is an unknown.
We spent last weekend at the most important Muslim site in Central Asia, Turkistan.
This weekend we are going to Turkey for Spring Break – I am really looking forward to this.

So, I can’t promise a whole lot of writing while we are in Turkey, though I do hope our travels spark some interesting reflections. Till next time…

Beyond the politics of Rudd and Abbott

2007-03-22T12:49:00.000+10:00

For those interested, you can read a recent article of mine, Beyond the politics of Rudd and Abbott, here.

Joy in Suffering?

2007-03-21T14:38:00.000+10:00

My wife, Anouchka, was given the following text to speak on at a primary school chapel earlier this week:

Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. (Romans 5:3-5)

It is a passage that is quite familiar for those of us who have grown up in the church. It is often the familiar passages – those that we had been trained to remember and know – that we need to reflect on the most!

One thing Anouchka did not want to do was to treat the idea of being joyful (or to glory) in suffering too glibly. Anouchka always gets her class to help her present the teaching rather than just stand in front of the school and preach. So, in preparation, she asked her class what their thoughts were about what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote to the church at Rome to 'glory in their sufferings'. One student commented about falling off their bike and not crying. The fact that kids seem to be taught this kind of application is precisely why those of us who grew up going to Sunday School need to reflect carefully later in life!

The general teaching, as far as I can tell, is that it is when we view suffering through the lens of hope that we can endure trial with joy. Importantly, any teaching I have heard and read on this focuses on my suffering, my perseverance, my character and my hope. Yet, as we discussed the passage, we began to wonder whether there was more to it.

Just a few verses after this passage comes the well-known statement that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’. Christ’s act on the cross gives us hope. Christ’s suffering on the cross gives us hope. Christ’s perseverance as he knew his time on Earth was coming to an end, gives us hope. The character of Christ (Phil 2), as he became the pure, perfect sacrificial lamb, gives us hope.

This seemed significant to me. If it is true that Christ’s perseverance in suffering gives me hope, might it be possible that my suffering could lead to hope gained by another? As I thought about enduringly inspirational people of faith, it seemed so many suffered in some way for the hope of others.

Furthermore, suffering may help another persevere. I would like to think that, if I became a prisoner of the state, in remembering the suffering of Bonhoeffer, I would be motivated to persevere in my stance against what I believed to be wrong (a sign of good character?).

So, the joy we have in suffering is not about false or superficial happiness when in times of trial. It is normal, human, to feel pain, grieve and hurt. Perhaps, the joy may come as we later reflect on the hope that the suffering facilitated in another.

Christian Allegiance

2007-03-11T12:43:00.000+10:00

I was about to sit down and write a follow-up post to my previous one that asked the question, whom will you serve? Before doing so, I thought I would take the quiet of the morning to read a chapter of the new book I received yesterday – Alan Hirsch’s The Forgotten Ways. I am glad I sat down and read what I did!

In my last post, I related the question, asked of the Israelites by Joshua, to the idea of serving in the military. A very small discussion ensued. As the question posed suggests, what I tried to get at was the idea of allegiance. It was suggested to me that Christians can serve God in the military in the same way that they can serve him in a company such as BHP or McDonalds. I agree that we can, indeed must, serve God in every sphere of life. However, I suggested that comparing military service with working at, say, BHP was not really fair. My argument was that serving your country in the military is inextricably tied up with allegiance. Nationalism seeks our allegiance to the State. Moreover, serving in the military requires our allegiance in the most extreme way. We are called to be part of a structure that puts the interests of a particular people (say, Australians) before the interests of other peoples (usually nations). This self-interest may lead to killing. This is a gross distortion of our understanding of being the people of God and the way in which this transcends any national, geo-political boundaries. Yet, sometime we get caught up in more political discussions surrounding war and pacifism and, for the Christian, God may merely become part of the argument. What I am suggesting is that God must be the very basis and centre of the argument.

Being an advocate of non-violence or pacifism is not as a mere reaction to the futility of war, but out of a fundamental theology that Christian allegiance must only be to God.

Back to the book I have just begun reading. The chapter I have just read is titled, the heart of it all: Jesus is Lord (pp.83-100). It is an excellent discussion of the fundamental idea that the Christian faith is a monotheistic faith not just in our declaration but practically.

Hirsch argues that ‘biblical monotheism’ lies at the heart of ‘the remarkable Jesus movements of history’ (86-87). Focusing on the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, Hirsch suggests that the claim that God – Yahweh – is the one God is a truly radical claim when we set it in its context. That context is one of polytheism. There were God’s for everything in the Ancient Near-Eastern world. To claim one God means ‘there could no longer be different gods for different spheres of life, a god of the temple, another god of politics…Rather, Yahweh is the ONE God who rules over every aspect of life and the world (88)’. Hirsch identifies the dualisms that dominate our ways of thinking and doing as fundamental flaws in our missional activity. Essentially, dualistic thinking falsely separates sacred from secular and sees us at a point where ‘whilst we might be confessing monotheists, we might end up being practicing polytheists (97, emphasis mine).

If we believe that we are called to be a missional people, then this idea of being radically committed to monotheism both in word and deed is of absolute importance. It is massively important, I would argue, in the area of politics. Hirsch’s book focuses on two significant Jesus movements – the early church and the Chinese church. In both these examples, allegiance to political authorities, Caesar and the CCP respectively, are forsaken with the Christian communities instead mobilizing around the basis of biblical monotheism.

What kind of missional claim do Christians have when we place our allegiance with the State? Hirsch quotes Lee Camp who writes: ‘ “Jesus is Lord” is a radical claim, one that is ultimately rooted in questions of allegiance, of ultimate authority, of the ultimate norm and standard for human life.’ (99)
As I suggested in my last post, the problem of mixed allegiance becomes clear in the most serious of ways when we consider nationalistic warfare. Camp writes, ‘At least in Rwanda, with “Christian Hutus” slaughtering “Christian Tutsis” (and vice versa), “Christian” apparently served as a brand name – a “spirituality”, or a “religion” – but not a commitment to a common Lord.

So the question of “whom will you serve?”, placed in the context of war, still remains a fundamentally – and profoundly – theological and missional question. The Christian's stance on war is not merely a political position, possibly backed up by religious argument. Rather, the Christian's stance on war is one that must have its roots in an understanding of the Lordship of Christ. So again I ask: whom will you serve?

Brisbane Times

2007-03-07T16:20:00.000+10:00

Particularly for fellow Queenslanders abroad...introducing the Brisbane Times (a Fairfax production)

Whom will you serve?

2007-03-05T16:18:00.000+10:00

The other night I was having a discussion with an American friend of mine. We were talking about some of the things we would like to do when we return home from Kazakhstan. He was telling me about the fact that he wanted to join the Marines but couldn’t for medical reasons. As he was giving me the history of his decision-making process, he said that it seemed it was not God’s purpose for him to enter the military. With a smile on my face I replied “of course some of us believe that it would never be God’s purpose”. The next day, I read the following piece of text from the Book of Joshua.

Joshua, in the last chapter, lays down a great challenge to the people of Israel:

Joshua 24: 14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

It is a great challenge for us also. Initially, it seems like a pretty simple, black-and-white kind of decision; you serve Yahweh or another god. Yet, I don’t think it is really that simple. Certainly for the Israelites it was not that simple. Joshua’s ultimatum seems to be a key theme (if not the key theme) in the history of the Israelites.

What about our situation though?
We often here about the false idols in contemporary culture. Consumerism and individualism are getting a pretty bad rap these days for many people - both religious and secular. In the Christian world, we often talk about material possessions or status as being false idols. These idols are things of temporary worth and are inanimate. Joshua, though, was not talking of idols but gods. So we need to make sure we ask the right question: who are we going to serve? Again, seems simple right?

I don’t think the question is as simple as it should be because we have distorted the holiness of God and made him to fit into our world. Of course, this is understandable - we must find a way to understand God. It makes sense to me that we would naturally make him fit into our world. Not only that, but we must also find ways to relate to God. We cannot serve God physically in the way that a waiter serves me food at a restaurant. So instead, we have to try and discover and discern what it means to serve God in a practical sense.

When we fit God into our world by making him the number 1 ticket holder of Western Civilization, we further complicate what it means to serve God. One example of this is that we sometimes think that serving our country may also be serving God. My friend said to me the other night that he wanted to serve his country. I immediately thought, “why would you want to serve your country in that way?”. I don’t know if he makes the link between serving his country and serving God, but it did remind me of the post 9/11 rhetoric of George Bush.

God is so tied up in the American identity that serving your country in Iraq is a way of serving God. Sometimes this is made explicit by people like George Bush, but my guess is that such an attitude exists in a more unconscious sense as a result of being a “Christian nation”.

Joshua does not talk about idols when he gives the Israelites another option other than Yahweh. Rather, he mentions the “gods of the Amorites” or “the gods of your forefathers”.
I want to stop here and simply ask the following questions:
Is serving your country by enlisting in the armed forces a possible way to also serve God? Or, is serving your country serving the gods of the Amorites?

Bonhoeffer: Life with(out) God

2007-03-01T14:59:00.000+10:00

“God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us. Matt 8:17 makes it quite clear that Christ helps us, not by virtue of his omnipotence, but by virtue of his weakness and suffering.”

("Letter to Eberhard Bethge", 16 July 1944, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, pp.360-361)

Ethics IV

2007-02-27T15:44:00.000+10:00

Humanity’s propensity towards various concepts of dualism is perhaps one of the most pervasive and deeply impacting forces in our history. It seems that it is so often a point of discussion in general academic and theological writing. It is important because it is the reason (or at least it is blamed) for the countless false dichotomies that govern our thinking and practice. I wonder if the absolute vs relative morality dichotomy in the field of ethics is also false?

Rather than being opposed to each other, perhaps absolutism and relativism play different roles in the ethical decision-making process.

I briefly commented in my last post on ethics that the response of “fanatics” (those who are absolutists) when faced with what they perceive to be immorality may well be the problem rather than their moral position per se. I am sure we have all either seen images of, or heard about, the pro-life protesters in the USA who hurl abuse at women entering abortion clinics. Their cries of “murderer” indicate that they have no concern for the specific situations. They are absolutists in the fanatical sense in that they refuse to deal with complexities that are inherent to our human existence.

This lack of sensitivity to even wanting to find out what the woman’s situation may be – this lack of pastoral concern – is the problem. The problem many people have with fanatics is that they are arrogant, insensitive and critical. Ironically – and most tragically - they dehumanize by refusing to listen, care and serve.

Their stance that values the unborn human life is shared by many. Holding an absolute position on this is not the problem, in fact I would suggest it is right. The problem is the hate and violence (not in the physical sense) towards members of the very species they are there advocating for. The problem is refusing to acknowledge the complex situations that we find ourselves in as a mere consequence of being part of this fallen world.

So perhaps it is possible to hold to absolutes and yet respond according to the differences that each situation brings. Thus, there is an acknowledgement that ethics is not merely an abstract set of rules, propositions or ideals. It is surely, then, a more humane and ethical approach.
I'm still interested in people’s responses…

On Idealism

2007-02-24T16:09:00.000+10:00

"...without ideals, and the vision and passion they engender, the world would be a bleak and colourless place. The greater challenge is to find ways to nurture idealism and ensure it doesn't give way to cynicism.

It's easy to sit back and criticise, it is much harder to step up and be part of the solution."
(Tracee Hutchison, "The attack on Garrett is the real hypocrisy", The Age, Feb 24 2007)

Ethics III

2007-02-23T20:24:00.000+10:00

For me, I do not often declare myself to be anything much. One label I do give myself is that of being a pacifist. While there are many factors that continue to influence me to hold this position, being a pacifist is essentially based on my belief that the lesson of the New Testament is that we deal with the problems of this world with means other than violence.

Perhaps this makes me a fanatic. According to the Irish bartender created by Finley Peter Dunne, a fanatic "does what he thinks th' Lord wud do if He only knew th' facts iv th' case."

It’s fair to say that religious fanatics are not the group I would want to be associated with, and so this quote of Dunne’s is a cause of some concern for me.

Yet I still find it difficult to move away from holding to certain absolute beliefs. As I read last week, Love Me Tender?: Sex & power in the age of pornography, by Anne Manne, I could not help but feel that there is a place for the absolute.

Manne begins the article by referring to an amateur DVD made by some boys in Werribee – a suburb of Melbourne – in which a 16 year-old girl is sexually humiliated by a group of 12 boys. Is this not wrong…absolutely?

Perhaps the issue many people have with fanatics is in how they respond to immorality? Perhaps the situational aspect of our ethics comes in our response rather than (the basis of) our position?

On Loving Osama

2007-02-22T18:27:00.000+10:00

A few weeks ago, a purposely provocative "campaign" was launched by some Australian Chirstians and churches. It was the "Jesus loves Osama" campaign. Gary Heard wrote a little about it and linked to a discussion on Andrew Bolt's blog.

In the current religious-political climate, it may seem appropriate to simply agree that God loves even Osam bin Laden and leave it at that! Yet, Andrew Hamilton, columnist at Eureka Street, in a recent article asks the question: 'Hate the sin, love the sinner' more sentimental than moral?

Starting wrong

2007-02-20T17:19:00.000+10:00

Alan Hirsch writes

"people who read about new forms and ideas about church and mission, get excited, and end up disillusioned because, after a few months of giving it a go, they decide it wasn’t what it was all cracked up to be. I have to admit that many people do end in this rather sad place. I think largely because they like the idea of emerging church but don’t want to bother about mission as the organizing principle of the church. They emerge before they get missional."

Ethics II

2007-02-20T12:51:00.000+10:00

In the last post, I asked questions about what kind of approach we take to ethical decision making. In this post, I want to discuss a little of the Reinhold Niebuhr story and approach to ethics.

Reinhold Niebuhr believed that we have to make choices based on our context. He changed from being a pacifist in his earlier years to being an advocate of the Allies’ attacks on Hitler’s Germany. Niebuhr, then, adopted his Christian Realism approach. Part of this is that ethical decisions must be based partly on situation, not dogma. Indeed, Niebuhr believed that "religion is so frequently a source of confusion in political life, and so frequently dangerous to democracy, precisely because it introduces absolutes into the realm of relative values." Furthermore, Niebuhr was very aware that the “truth” in the bible was often not agreed upon by all churches.

This last point is made clear in the current debate between Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd. So in light of our knowledge of the shades of grey – indeed, the colour – in many contentious issues, how do we make decisions?

Ethics

2007-02-16T21:30:00.000+10:00

I am currently writing a 6 week English discussion course for a local university. As I did last year, I am developing it in such a way that it encourages students to grapple with relevant, significant and challenging issues as well as improving their English language skills.

The broad theme for the course is ethics. The particular focus in the area of ethics is on the pragmatic approach. The key question that is threaded throughout the material of each week is: does the end ever justify the means?

My plan is to write a series of posts around this topic over the next week. For now, though, what are your answers to the key question? When you think to circumstances in your own life, do you make decisions based on the end result or some other way?

The commoditization of education

2007-02-15T21:08:00.000+10:00

If there is one thing that both the Government and the Opposition agree on, it’s that the education system in Australia is in need of some fairly urgent and significant reform.

In my last post, I was critical of the Howard Government’s approach to educational reform. Here, I suggest that the ALP’s “Education Revolution” platform is also a move in the wrong direction.

The title of the New Directions paper sets out the ALP’s ideology: The Australian Economy needs an Education Revolution. The reform agenda of the ALP is not so much about developing young people of good character as it is about securing economic prosperity. It is, perhaps, a true signification of the centrality of money in today’s world.

The paper states that: “human capital investment is at the heart of a third wave of economic reform that will position Australia as a competitive, innovative, knowledge-based economy that can compete and win in global markets.”

While the document contains some very relevant and important information regarding Australia’s level of investment in education over the past 10 years, its basis is what is fundamentally flawed.

As a teacher, my goal is not to ensure that Australia is a place of economic prosperity, Rather, I want to assist young people to develop a character that sees them engage with the global community with integrity. I hope that I help my students to begin to engage with the world in a constructive and meaningful way. I hope that they see that they are not being educated for selfish means, but to be contributors to the betterment of Earth.

The ALP’s new strategy has little time for such naïve and idealistic romanticizing. Their approach is coldly pragmatic. They use cold economic terms to describe the input they seek to have in Australia’s education system. They believe that they must “invest in human capital”. They do not want to invest in people, but capital. Not only that, but they are looking for a good return for their money. It is a business decision. We all know the maxim: you have to spend money to make money. That is what the ALP is on about.

It is a sad reality that, despite Kevin Rudd’s recent claims to being a compassionate social-democrat, the two dominant forces in Australian politics are actually batting for the same team: the market.

It is sad reality that education has become commoditized. It raises the question for social-democrats as to how they can critique the dominant ideology. It is not realistic or perhaps even desirable to call for a return to state-owned service providers. So how will those who see the basis of capitalism as dehumanizing, work with a system built on neo-liberalism?

Educational Reform and the Culture Wars

2007-02-14T15:41:00.000+10:00

Last week, the Centre for Independent Studies – a right-wing think tank – released a report by Jennifer Buckingham declaring the need to decentralise state education systems.

The report suggests that local schools should have more autonomy, particularly in the hiring and firing of staff. The paper is an attack on unions’ influence on education. It argues that “state governments are in the grip of teacher unions” and that “staffing systems work for the benefit of teacher unions rather than students or even the majority of teachers.”

Given its strong criticism of the unions, it is highly likely that the Government is in agreement with this appraisal. Interestingly though, the Government is working towards centralizing school curriculum to ensure that each state is teaching the same content.

It is an interesting example of the culture wars currently being talked about amongst political commentators.

The Government is not seeking a full decentralization of the education system. While nothing new, this is an example of the political leanings of John Howard. He is not, outright, a liberal. His politics is a strange fusion of social conservatism and economic liberalism. Indeed, Kevin Rudd recently wrote a piece for The Monthly where he suggests that this fusion is actually untenable. In discussing Howard’s role in the culture wars, Rudd asserts:

Howard’s culture war, however, also masks a deeper, more unsettling reality: that the socially conservative values at the core of Howard’s cultural attack on the Left are in fact under siege from the forces of economic neo-liberalism that he himself has unleashed from the Right. Whether it is “family values”, the notion of “community service’’ or the emphasis on “tradition” in the history wars, “traditional conservative values” are being demolished by an unrestrained market capitalism that sweeps all before it.

Back to the education situation, I do not think that Buckingham, Bishop and Howard have it completely wrong. I agree with much of the critique of the current system of teacher recruitment. I am uncertain, though, that the answer is turning the education system into a “free market”.

Again, this is where Kevin Rudd has been criticizing the Howard Government recently. In his critique of Howard’s economic policies, Rudd slams what he believes is a Hayekian basis for the Government’s economic ideology. Rudd suggests that the social democratic tradition holds that, while the free-market may well exist, there may be limits to this due to the individual having a regard for the “other” and not just “self”. In fact, Rudd specifically refers to the place of education amongst Adam Smith’s list of public goods and the absence of education in Hayek’s list of public goods.

So I am not opposed to recontextualising the education system for the 21st century. I am, however, concerned that the current Government is proposing two different reforms that do not quite fit together. It seems a little peculiar that schools may be given the power to do almost everything other than determine their curriculum. I am interested to see if other major reform agendas are suggested that manage to move beyond unions v neo-liberalism. Or if anyone knows of any, let me know!

Andrew Hamilton on the Rudd-Abbott debate

2007-02-07T19:27:00.000+10:00

Today's column by Andrew Hamilton in Eureka Street offers an analysis of both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's comments on faith and politics. You can read it here.

Abbott and Rudd: The politics of faith and politics

2007-02-06T17:58:00.000+10:00

Tony Abbott’s recent speech to the Young Liberals Conference in Melbourne, is the first indication that the political jousting surrounding Kevin Rudd’s recent musings about faith and politics is about to begin.

Abbott suggests that Rudd, in his recent “Faith in Politics” paper published in The Monthly, is doing exactly what he criticised the Right of doing – “commandeering God for political purposes”. I think that it is true that Rudd’s recent musings about faith spring from political motivation.

When Rudd first put together the ALP’s faith and values taskforce, he was responding to what he saw as a significant political problem for the ALP: that religious belief had become linked with voting Conservative. Thus, I would argue that Rudd was primarily motivated by politics. Nevertheless, it would seem that, as a Christian, Kevin Rudd has a more personal reason to be addressing this issue. It seems to me that Rudd has been frustrated that the religion to which he holds was well and truly in the grasp of the political parties he sits opposite.

Furthermore, faith is, of course, one of those things that is fundamental to a person’s outlook on life, their identity etc. We must acknowledge, then, that the apparent necessary link between Conservative political agenda and the Christian agenda must have struck a nerve with Kevin Rudd. (In a previous post, I express concern over a perceivable chasm between Rudd’s stated compassionate beliefs and his reputation as an unfriendly, self-seeking politician)

Thus, I think that Kevin Rudd is endeavoring to offer a different perspective on how faith relates to politics. His article in October’s The Monthly was definitely of the persuasive variety, however, I do not think that he is ultimately trying to commandeer God for political purposes. I do, though, think that we need to keep critically observing the politics and religion debate as it unfolds. After all, motivations often change, sometimes unwittingly.

The proposal by Rudd that the Christian gospel is a social gospel and, therefore, is concerned with public issues such as war, global warming, asylum-seekers and industrial relations has provided balance to the overly individualized and privatized notion of morality that was linked with politics. His essay seems to have given those Christians who hold to more traditionally Left political positions a sense of empowerment. Moreover, so far it has provided an alternative which encourages Christians to be more discerning in their political choices.

As Kevin Rudd stated in his paper, “God does not belong to any political party”. In light of this, the concern expressed by Tony Abbott in his recent speech that Kevin Rudd’s purpose is actually to suggest that the ALP should be the party of choice for Christians is a concern worth having. The concern for us constituents is that the issue of faith and politics may become one fought on party-based lines.

As the politicizing of the faith-politics nexus increases, we need to be ever vigilant as we try to determine the spin that will inevitably come from both sides.

Poverty and Affluence: Questions of Credibility and Possibility

2007-02-04T10:52:00.000+10:00

We live in a world where the credibility of leaders is constantly being questioned. Last week, Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, delved into the credibility of the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd's, recent comments and writings on God and Politics.
Late last year, Ted Haggard, President of the National Association of Evangelicals in the USA was ousted from his ministry in one of the scandalous episodes.

Those who do not stake a claim on being credible, of course, mostly escape the critical eye of the casual observer. It is those whose purposes or causes thrive on claims of benevolence, altruism, compassion and integrity who predictably - and understandably - are judged most carefully.
The real question of credibility is does (whoever) walk the walk or just talk the talk?

In today's The Age, the following question is addressed:

Does Bono put his money where his mouth is?

The article looks at the evidence suggesting that Bono and U2 are, in fact, arch-capitalists. It seeks to suggest that their business dealings - including tax minimisation and evasion - don't fit with the message of giving that is preached in the One campaign etc.

In response to U2's decision to move its publishing company from Ireland to the Netherlands just six months before Ireland ended an exemption on musicians' royalty income, one critic of Bono is quoted in the article as saying: "This is somebody who's exceptionally rich taking the opportunity to shift his tax burden to somebody else, but then asking governments around the world to spend that tax take in the way that he would like".

Is the question of Bono putting his money where his mouth is a fair question?
Are capitalism and compassion mutually exclusive?

Perhaps one of the key developments in the fight against world poverty might become the call to not just Make Poverty History, but to also Make Affluence History.

The question of Bono and others then becomes, are we wasting our time lobbying to end world poverty if we are not willing to end excessive wealth?

Michael Frost: Exiles

2007-01-31T14:02:00.000+10:00

I have just finished reading Michael Frost's book Exiles. I read it in bits and pieces over the past month. I know myself well enough to be sure that if I attempt a brief review of the book, it will end up being rather verbose! So, I will try to offer some very basic opinions:

Overall

I felt it was very "hit and miss". There were some very good parts and some very ordinary.

The Good

The premise: that we are exiles and must re-evaluate our discipleship in a post-Christian context.

The section on Brueggemann's theology of exile.

The section on communitas.

Some of the theological explanations (including in the sections focusing on worship).

The Bad

I felt the stories and descriptions of Frost's theology in practice were usually boring, glib and far less radical or revolutionary than the way they are portrayed.

When Frost steers away from theological bases for his position and moves into rants (seemingly based on personal preference). These were far less convincing and often labored the point.

Most of the middle pages of the book.

I felt that it was a little random - which might be fine - except that it was structured as though there was supposed to be a coherency to the book which I felt wasn't there.

The Ugly

A story reported which I know the details of...obviously better than Frost because there were significant mistakes. If a journalist made the same errors and was found out, they would lose their job. Yet, for some reason, an author of a book can get away with it. I hate to think how many other second and third hand stories were full of misinformation.

The section where Frost decided give some nutritional advice...was he serious?

A fair statement about the potentially narcissistic nature of blogging was not matched by a statement about what is possibly the next step in narcissism: writing an entire book.

The Conclusion

Worth a read but I don't think it will be a book I will look back on and see as formative to my thinking and discipleship.

Australia Day 2007

2007-01-26T18:08:00.000+10:00

Some things to reflect on this Australia Day (I know it's almost over for you Aussies actually in Australia!).

The last question asked of Bonnie as she left Seoul Airport.
And then this reflection from the 2006 Christmas Address of the President of the Uniting Church in Australia, Gregor Henderson, (taken from the Centre for an Ethical Society)

So Christmas makes a huge difference to religion and to life. Among the differences are these:
One, a broad world view is the way of Christ. Nations are secondary, national interest is secondary, national borders are secondary. Christians look to the interests of the whole world, for Christ came for everyone, “peace on earth, goodwill among all”. So Christians will always be a thorn in the flesh of those who put national interest first and foremost. We are bound to ask questions about overseas wars, the fairness of international trade systems, the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, so-called citizenship tests, about world poverty, about climate change.

Thinking "outloud" on (Post-)Christendom

2007-01-01T19:13:00.000+10:00

In Alan Hirsch's new book, The Forgotten Ways, he will look at the situation of the pre-Constantine church and the contemporary Chinese church. Hirsch's book attempts to uncover the Apostolic Genius and missional DNA (mDNA) in both the ancient and contemporary example.

These two contexts share with each other the fact that they exist(ed) outside of Christendom. The ancient example existed before Constantine and the contemporary example exists outside of the Western tradition.*

If we are to listen the vast majority of commentators on contemporary mission to the West, we will hear that we are now living in a post-Christendom context. Discussion around this shift is often centred on the social-cultural aspect. Missiologists tell us that the church no longer occupies a central place in Western society but has moved to the fringe. I do not doubt that this is true. However, I do wonder if we can claim that Christendom is over.**

Back to Hirsch's examples. Both the pre-Constantine church and the Chinese church experienced growth during times of persecution. Both contexts contained Christianity as an outlawed faith movement.

As we in the West consider these examples pardigmatically, sociologically and culturally we must see a crucial difference. While the position of the church may have moved from the centre to the margins, Christianity remains a legally acceptable religion/faith/institution in the West. This stauts of "acceptable" is, in large part, a marker of the Constantine-birthed phenomenon called Christendom.

I am not suggesting that Alan Hirsch or the other missiological thinkers and strategists have it wrong. I am aware that Hirsch is trying to look at these contexts that are obviously different to ours and discern what we can learn from them in regards to missional movement. For me, though, the possibility that Christendom will exist in the West as long as the level of (particularly State) tolerance that currently exists continues, leads me to question the possibility of seeing a similar missional movement to those of the early church and recent Chinese church.

As the title to this post states, I am thinking "out-loud". I am interested in your thoughts. Have I missed the point? Is it possible for Christianity to experience significant growth without persecution of or by the church?***

* I am not actually responding to anything specific I read from the introduction and first chapter in Hirsch's book. His writing - along with some other reading I have been doing - sparked my thinking.

** My understanding of the prefix "post" in post-Christendom is that the effects of Christendom may still be present even though it no longer "exists" itself. Despite this, I think we may sometimes underplay just how strong an influence it has. While we may need to untie ourselves from Christendom-thinking, we must acknowledge the aspects of Christendom that we cannot extract ourselves from. The existence or absence of persecution or tolerance/acceptability is not going to be intentionally controlled by the church.

*** While "persecution" may be too strong a word, we could include imperialism here.

Alan Hirsch: The Forgotten Ways

2006-12-29T18:37:00.000+10:00

Alan Hirsch's new book, The Forgotten Ways, has just been published. You can read the intro and first chapter here. Dialogue surrounding the content/issues in the book can be had at his blog.

Christmas according to NT Wright

2006-12-26T13:00:00.001+10:00

I found this a very interesting, provoking, (of course, erudite) and encouraging message.

Bishop Wright offers stories and suggestions of how we can engage the world as followers of Christ.
You will have to go here and read it, though -- it's not too long (yes, I'm thinking of you DePrenski). Here's a taste of the more provocative part!

"Well, you may say, I didn’t expect to be told about empires and money and wars when I came to church tonight. I expected to hear lovely things that would make me feel good inside. But that’s the trouble with how we’ve treated Christmas these many years: we’ve screened out the emperors, and so we’ve missed the point of the angels. The Christmas story, like Isaiah’s prophecy, isn’t about an escape from the real world of politics and economics, of empires and taxes and bloodthirsty wars. It’s about God addressing these problems at last, from within, coming into our world – his world! – and shouldering the burden of authority, coming to deal with the problems of evil, of chaos and violence and oppression in all their horrible forms. And only when we look hard at those promises and come to grips with what they really mean are we able to grasp the real comfort and joy that Christmas does truly provide. Otherwise we are purchasing a spurious private comfort at the inflated cost of allowing the rest of the world to continue in its misery."

Rudd on market-fundamentalism

2006-12-19T18:43:00.000+10:00

If you are interested in some of Rudd's thoughts on the market, read the transcript of a lecture he gave around one month ago. Go here to download a pdf version of the lecture.

A focus on family this Christmas

2006-12-18T20:50:00.000+10:00

In a recent post, I linked to an article that suggested that, while we often focus on the family around Christmas time, the idea of family first is opposed to the gospel.

In this post, I want to approach the place of family in relation to Christmas from a very different perspective. I want to affirm that the link between family and Christmas considered by Hamilton should be critiqued. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that there is an important place for the discussion of family at this time of year.

It is a reflection on the opening verses of the gospel of Matthew that I believe is of interest. These reflections spring out of a devotion given by someone else last week.

Matthew’s gospel opens with a genealogy. There is no introduction or salutation, just 16 verses of names and a kind of summation in verse 17 before introducing the birth of Jesus.

During Christmas, we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Matthew, before writing of the series of events leading to this, writes of Jesus’ family line. What is significant, then, about the inclusion of this text in his gospel account?

Well it seems important that we consider just who is mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy. After all, Matthew does not, of course, name every member of Jesus’ family in the way we might when constructing a family tree. Moreover, he does not even name all the same people as does Luke in his account.

Scholars often refer to the kingly nature of Matthew’s gospel; that there is a focus on the King arriving and that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Certainly in the genealogy, Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry along kingly lines. In many ways, this idea might conjure up images of Jesus being the next in line of a tradition of rich, honoured and privileged people. Yet, Matthew includes some very different people in his tracing of Jesus’ heritage.

I must make clear at this point that I am no biblical scholar! Yet I find it very interesting to consider just who the five women Matthew includes in his genealogy are. I decided to google this aspect of Matthew’s genealogy to find some general comments about these women. Here are the results from this site:

1- Tamar, Mat.1:3:
Tamar is a Canaanite woman wife of Judah’s eldest son, Er (Ge.38:1-7).
Gen 38:11-30 informs us that Judah’s daughter-in-law, deprived of a promised husband (the last of Judah’s sons), impersonated a harlot. She enticed Judah to lie with her and from that illicit union came two sons - Perez and Zerah. And from Perez sprung Boaz, David and ultimately the Christ.

2- Rahab, Mat.1:5:
Rahab was known as ‘the harlot’ (Joshua 2:1).
Because Rahab had given friendly welcome to the spies, she’d exercised faith in the spies’ God (Heb 11:31). She believed that Jehovah was about to destroy Jericho and give Israel Canaan, so she petitioned the spies to spare her (Joshua 2:9-13).
Having entered into a covenant agreement with her (Joshua 2:14,17-20), she tied a red cord in the window, demonstrating her faith (belief in action) and was saved by Jehovah who didn’t let her habitation in the wall be destroyed (Joshua 6:25)... and she became the mother (ancestor) of Christ.

3- Ruth, Mat.1:5:
Ruth was a Moabitess, a gentile, a pagan (Ruth 1:4)
From her marriage union with Boaz, David came and the greater Son of David, Jesus. David, strictly speaking, was the third generation from Ruth,

4- Bathsheba, Mat.1:6:
She had adultery with King David (2S.11:4).
- Solomon, her son with David, was the ancestor of Joseph (Mat.1:7)... the "legal father" of Jesus.
- Nathan, the other son with David, was the ancestor of Virgin Mary (Lk.3:31)... the "real mother" of Jesus, thus avoiding the Jeconiah curse.

5- Virgin Mary, Mat.1:16: She is the Mother of Jesus, "the most blessed among women" proclaims the Bible (Lk.1:42), the one who "all generations shall call blessed" (Lk.1:48, Ps.45:17).

I would add that Mary’s situation – being pregnant with Jesus – was scandalous being unwed at the time!

Of course, there is much more that could be said and written about Matthew’s genealogy. Taking just this small selection, however, we may be challenged to consider the type of God we Christians worship. We worship a God who uses and blesses the most lowly in society.

As we approach Christmas, we anticipate the birth of the messiah. We celebrate – on December 25 – each year, the birth one who challenges in every way the status quo of our world. The systems and conventions that govern human life and interaction are confronted by the One who saves from a place of humility and heritage of scandal.

Is Christmas a time to focus on the family? In a very different way than we are used to, I think it certainly is. Perhaps when we think of family this Christmas, we will reflect a little on the family from which Jesus descended. Questions to ask may include: why did Matthew choose to include these women? What kind of message might the inclusion of these women have sent to the first recipients of Matthew’s gospel? Who might be challenged by Jesus’ heritage and in what sense (both in 1st century Palestine and our world today)? Is it a challenge to us and our attitudes?

May you be challenged afresh – as I am being – this Christmas as you celebrate the birth of the Messiah – Jesus the Christ.

Faith Communities United on Climate Change

2006-12-13T14:26:00.000+10:00

I was pleased to read the transcript of a segment on the ABC's Religion Report that focused on faith communities and climate change.

In what's believed to be a world first, 16 of Australia's leading faith communities released a document on global warming yesterday. Entitled 'Common Belief', it's a collection of theological and spiritual statements on the climate change debate.

I had already read the Evangelical Alliance's statement, but it was good to also read that of the Baptists. The Baptist's stated that: The relationship between humans and the rest of creation is therefore one of interdependence and stewardship. It also states that, Humans are not separate from but are part of this creation.

This pleased me because it contains the subtle but important inclusion of the idea of interdependence. While we have often been poor in our stewardship, Christians have been more likely to acknowledge their role as stewards. Our interdependence with the environment, though, has often been lacking. While the statement is careful to make clear that only humans have been created in the image of God and that it is denied that "the creation and its ecosystems are to be worshipped or venerated", it seems to intentionally make clear that we are part of creation not simply lords over creation.

It was also quite a statement to see the Baptists declare:

We call on all Australian citizens to:
• urge their political leaders to take steps to reduce global “greenhouse gas” emissions
by 50 per cent by 2050, and to encourage wider use of renewable energy sources
• take steps to reduce their own “greenhouse gas” emissions such as:
— using public transport or walking where possible, and purchasing smaller vehicles
— reducing household energy consumption (especially air conditioners)
— reducing household water consumption and installing rainwater tanks where
possible
— reusing and recycling household products

I wonder if any of the Baptist Unions in Australia will:
1) make reccomendations or even stipulate that employee vehicles should not exceed a certain km per litre figure
2) resource their congregations, encouraging them and educating them on this issue

Finally, it is perhaps an even bolder statement to see the Australian Christian Lobby included in this group of faith communities. This is not just an issue for the Left!

You can read all the statements by downloading a copy of the booklet from the Climate Institute of Australia

Christmas is about family?

2006-12-11T21:19:00.000+10:00

Andrew Hamilton, from Eureka Street:

"At this time of the year, all roads lead to the family. Christmas is family time. It is also a time for politicians to practise their pitch in defence of decent Australian families, Australian working families, and family values. We even have a political party called Family First.

Family First says that it is not an explicitly Christian party. That is just as well, because the claim made in the name of the party could hardly be less Christian. In Mark’s Gospel the greatest single obstacle to faith is to put family first."

"The stories of Christmas take us out of the private world of family and friends into the public—it makes shepherds, unwanted kings, angels and innkeepers part of our domestic scene. The dream is of a God whose passion is the wholeness of the world, and not only of our private lives.

Many of today’s symbols of Christmas—hospital appeals, serving meals for the homeless, finding presents for poor children—hint at this wider dimension. Christmas is not family first."

From Bonhoeffer to Hayek

2006-12-11T14:57:00.000+10:00

There has been quite some hype in Australia about Kevin Rudd's essay on Faith and Politics (which you can now read online!) in the October edition of The Monthly. The November edition has another essay by Rudd, this time critiquing the Hayek model of market fundamentalism which Rudd argues is the basis of John Howard's politics.

It is well worth a read - and I felt was possibly more interesting than his previous article.

First, make affluence history

2006-12-07T13:55:00.000+10:00

There seems to be an increase in discussion about the need to tackle affluence if we are to do something about poverty. A few months ago, I got to reading Affluenza by Clive Hamilton. Here is a little of what he had to say:

“…to tackle the problem of poverty, we must first tackle the problem of affluence. And the problem with affluence is that once people become affluent they continue to believe that more money is the key to a happier life when the evidence suggests that it makes no difference beyond a certain threshold. This belief has powerful personal and social ramifications, not the least being that the affluent become more preoccupied with themselves. That is why Australians are richer than ever but less inclined to sympathise with the dispossessed.” (p.18)

So, has Hamilton got things right?

The Human Side of Politics

2006-12-05T10:57:00.001+10:00

I have read of the latest ALP leadership challenge with great interest. I am interested to see what kind of difference, if any, Kevin Rudd may bring for the ALP and for Australian politics. I am interested to watch for the way the Government responds and how they approach the 2007 election.

The Coalition is – to borrow the latest Ruddism – at a kind of fork in the road, or at least a crucial stage politically. Polls, general feeling and circumstances suggest the electorate is tiring of the current regime.

Will Rudd endure a difficult period after a few honeymoon-months creating a perfect time for Howard to call an early election? Will Costello see this “new blood” an opportunity to further stake his claim on the leadership of the Liberal Party and the nation? Certainly if Howard goes to another election and wins, he will surely have to hand over to Costello within the first year of the next term if the Coalition is to have any chance of entering the following election as a viable alternative with a fresh agenda.

But more than these things, I have observed (of course, from afar) the past few days’ proceedings with much interest for more human reasons.

I must readily admit that I enjoy the politics of politics. Yet I am equally aware – and often disturbed – by politics’ politics. As I read Kim Beazley’s address to the media, despite my distance, I felt a real sadness as he demonstrated his commitment to the ALP and his desire for a better society (if only Beazley had been as compelling when faced with the prospect of winning as he has been after losing – who could forget his stirring speech after losing the 2001 election?).

During the speech, the human side of Beazley emerged from the bravado that seemed to consistently manifest itself before ballots. This latest one had us hear familiar yet unconvincing assurances that, “I’m not in the business of losing…I expect to win this ballot and take the ALP to victory at the next election.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, poor Beazley was more convincing when he was honest and had nothing to lose. In many ways, that was the very thing that let Beazley down. His inability to shine when he needed to may be what John Howard meant when he talked about Beazley not having the ticker. Everyone saw Beazley as good bloke, a nice guy. Unfortunately, that is often an insurmountable hurdle in the sport of politics.

This provides an appropriate place to discuss Rudd. It would seem that almost no one thinks Rudd is a good bloke. Even his deputy – Julia Gillard – who joined him in his campaign to oust Beazley apparently “hates him with a passion”. As I read comment after comment this weekend about how Rudd was an intelligent, Mandarin-speaking, success with a reputation for horrible outbursts and little interest in his colleagues, I couldn’t help but think of all that he has written about politics lately.

Rudd has lamented what he believes to have been the usurping of the religious vote by the Right. Against the Right’s preoccupation with personal morality issues, Rudd has suggested that many of today’s moral issues are actually issues of a corporate, public nature: global warming, asylum-seekers, the war in Iraq and industrial relations. He has been appealing to a social gospel which, as its name suggests, puts others first. While political commentators have been writing about the stark contrast in Rudd’s troubled upbringing and his Queen’s English accent, it is this stark contrast in his rhetoric and apparent manner that is most intriguing, even disconcerting. This man who preaches a social politics describes himself as a “very determined bastard”.

This is not necessarily an undesirable characteristic. Perhaps people within his own organization don’t like him because he is idealistic and therefore unconcerned about the workings of a very political party which functions according to favours and back-room deals. Yet, as recent days suggest, it is unlikely Kevin Rudd is free of these machinations. Rather, reports suggest he is a very determined bastard in the sense that his desire to achieve fits within a psyche attached to many successful politicians: egotism and/or megalomania. A man with a terrible temper and little time for camaraderie seems the opposite of the man who ate dinner with tax collectors, welcomed the children when his followers shooed them away and affirmed one woman’s decision to sit and listen rather than fuss about as her sister.

All this is not to point the finger at Kevin Rudd in a way that suggests I or anyone else is any better than him. Yet, Kevin Rudd is now well and truly in the spotlight. As a result, his ideology and policy will – and should be – critiqued. One of the ways in which we may make that critique is to consider how the ideology fits with the action.

As Rudd takes control of the direction of the ALP, I will watch with interest to see where this ‘god-botherer’ leads them, and how. Politics is an undoubtedly dirty game. Rudd speaks of a great respect for the compassion for humanity demonstrated by Jesus. Will this paradigm for life have any impact upon Rudd’s politics? Time will tell.

Can Rudd steer ALP to victory?

2006-12-01T12:35:00.000+10:00

As The Age put it: It's On. Rudd is challenging Beazley.

So, what do we think? Is this a good thing? Is the timing right? Will it make a difference to the ALP's hopes in 2007 (I'm fairly certain October is when the election is due)?

Beazley calls leadership ballot

It's on: Rudd challenges Beazley

Labor's moment of truth

Labor leadership vote in the balance

Right to Rudd: Bring it on now

God and the World

2006-11-29T12:53:00.000+10:00

There has been a lot of talk surrounding social issues in Australia recently - - particularly in Melbourne. There has been the talk on global warming with the Walk for Warming Day; MPH Concert; U2 and Bono Tour; and the G20 meet.

A couple of posts ago, I introduced Glenn Jessop. One of his first posts (here), Glenn was reflecting on a lecture he had attended. This is what he had to say:

The basic argument of the presenter was that the fundamental principles of capitalism are incompatible with Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God (or God’s Economy, as it was nicely phrased). This presents a set of interesting and challenging questions. As a follower of Christ, how does this (or should this) affect my life (and lifestyle)? In what ways am I called to be counter-cultural within a capitalist, consumerist economy? How might it be possible to operate outside of these systems?

These are, of course, huge questions that can't be answered easily. I did, however, want to share some reflections once made by OT professor, Walter Brueggemann.

Bruggemann considers Covenant as a paradigm that works to transform not just individual and church relationship with God, but also a paradigm that works to transform the world.

It's quite a bit of text, but worth going over a couple of times and reflecting on it...

Finally, we may rearticulate our covenantal hope for the world. So long as this subversive paradigm [the paradigm of covenant] is kept to God and church, we are safe enough. Its character of surprise and threat becomes clear when the covenant is related to the world beyond the believing community. The covenantal paradigm affirms that the world which we serve, and for which we care, is a world yet to be liberated. A theology of covenanting is not worth the effort unless it leads to energy and courage for mission.

So we are pressed to ask: What might be expected yet for the world? The response is that the world is intended by God to be a community that covenants, that distributes its produce equally, that values all its members, and that brings the strong and the weak together in common work and common joy.

Though it is not yet that kind of community, we are assured that soon or late it will be (cf. Rev. 11:15).

And the mission of the believing community is to articulate, anticipate and practice that transformation which is sure to come.

…the faithful community knows something about the world, hopes something for the world, and expects something of the world. What it knows and hopes and expects is that the world is to be transformed. That is in itself no mean ministry: to know, to hope and to expect. And that, perhaps, is the most important and most subversive thing the church can now do: to refuse to give up on the world and its promised transformation. Those who are victimized by the world in its present order need most of all voices of assurance that what now exists is not the way of the future. Such a voice is always subversive because it goes against our usual presuppositions and against the way the present order wants us to think. We have grown so accustomed to the disorders and inequalities which beset us that we do not expect it to be otherwise. And that is because we believe the world to be autonomous, set on its own course, with no possibility of transformation or intervention. We act as though the world gets to vote on its long-term future.

We have grown accustomed to the ways in which institutions are self-serving, in which every institution serves primarily its functionaries in order to preserve jobs and enhance personal well-being.

This is true of government, court, school, hospital, church. Because the forms of public life are so complex, we despair of change. We expect ourselves and certainly others to be exploited. And we do not imagine that it can be otherwise.

But against all that, this poet of the exile, who knew about the pathos of Hosea and the promise of Jeremiah, flings his dangerous words. He conjures life alternatively as a genuine homecoming. He asserts that a condition of alienation and displacement is not our final destiny; there will be a homecoming of transformation. And the company and followers of this poet (which means us) keep the dream alive. Surely he had to speak of things he did not understand. But he clearly believes

• that the world is not closed, fixed or settled;

• that institutions can be changed and transformed;

• that communities of people can be practitioners of other ways of living.

Covenant as a Subversive Paradigm

by Walter Brueggemann

The Power of Perspective

2006-11-23T09:10:00.000+10:00

I’ll start this post with the main “thought” I wanted to share. Perspective is Powerful and sometimes travelling outside my world is really valuable for gaining some of it.

Last weekend I flew down to Melbourne to spend sometime with some family & friends and go to the U2 concert. I had a great time but one of the most significant things occurred to me on the plane on the way home.

Just before the plane took off a guy about my age, 36, sat down next to me. We had for the next two hours the most amazing conversation. Now I am one of those people (and I am sorry if someone like me has annoyingly “bailed” you up) that loves to have conversations with people on planes. In fact I look forward to who is going to be “put next to me.”

This guy was single, English and travelling to Australia on holiday. As a profession, he was a Steward for an international airline. Now can I ask you what do you now assume about this guy…. ? Well he was and it was only a few minutes into the conversation that it occurred to me that he was (even before he told me what he did).

Because he was, I thought to myself that if I was to gain his perspective on life “I had better listen well.” So for the first hour or so that’s what I did. I listened, whilst also asking him some questions about family, growing up, what he liked about his job, and what his aspirations were.

Then about an hour into the conversation he asked me, “what do you do?” It’s always interesting what the response of people is. I told him I was a “pastor”, at which point he said something along the lines of, “Well you must get sick of the way your profession is portrayed.” For someone who is used to being put “in a box”, he was sensitive towards others who receive the same treatment. Ironically it’s probably my profession that have been the first to put someone like him into a series of boxes. I read this week in Romans these verses, which in light of the flight on Monday stood out to me.

“Well” you may be saying, “What terrible people you have been talking about!” but wait a minute! You are just as bad. When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are talking about yourselves, for you do these very same things…do you think God will judge and condemn others for doing them and overlook you when you do them too? Don’t you realise how patient he is being with you? Or don’t’ you care? Can’t you see that he has been waiting this time without punishing you, to give you time to turn from your sin? His kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” (Romans 2:1-4)

Kindness is not something I think we automatically carry around with us. I think we are more likely to carry a measuring stick. I appreciated the time with this man. His acceptance and genuine care towards me reminded me of the encounters that Jesus had with people. It was great to be able to look at the world though his eyes. It reminded me of the Power of Perspective and that it’s only when I take the time to listen and understand those around me that I can drop my measuring stick and offer the Grace to others that I also depend upon.

Dave

Introducing Glenn

2006-11-23T00:49:00.000+10:00

Just thought I'd plug a new blog by Glenn Jessop. Glenn has started with some interesting posts on some BIG issues. He's a pretty cluey guy and humble to go with it.

An Early Christmas.

2006-11-16T13:46:00.000+10:00

So how is the Christmas count down for you and your family going? Julie and I have noticed that Christmas things are getting earlier and earlier. Most of the dates for the break ups surrounding our kid’s activities are happening in November instead of December. I guess it’s just another sign of the busyness that often threatens to engulf us as people “get in early.” I was recently sent this statement from an Australian Christian Leader;

"The pathway to achievement is never without trouble. Often, the level of opposition determines the value of a mission. Accept trouble on the pathway as the norm. You may fail and make a mistake. It's all part of the journey. The worst moments can become your greatest days. You'll emerge on the other side wiser and stronger. Don't be bothered with people's bad opinions. Time will pass and when you're still standing, even your enemies will speak well of you."

When I read this and think of the “trouble” that resits us and causes us stress, my immediate response was to think of those active troubles, where the enemy is “in your face” and the cause of the extra stress is easily identifiable. What happens though when the enemy is unseen, unidentifiable and yet still causes us “opposition” to the good “mission” we have? This week I have spent some time at the Morayfield Shopping centre manning the TEAR and Watoto Stand that our local justice group had set up. In that context I was reminded afresh of the two passive (but voracious) enemies we all face, Busyness and Consumerism.

Shopping centres are great places to see both of these Idols of our time in full flight. The problem with them is that they are quiet and insidious in the way they work. They are like spiritual Termites. They work quietly in dark places away from the unseen eye, undermining relationships and taking our focus of things of real value- eternal value, to such a degree that when the troubles of loneliness, death, unemployment, economic downturns and global warming hit, they expose the weakness of what has been eaten away. We spend so much of out time, effort and money chasing after things that are of no importance. What is it that we can do to exterminate these subversive values to living a Kingdom life? I think for starters we can all think about what we are “devoted too”. A warning here, this will not be easy! We'll face trouble, bad opinions and our own selfishness (I'm preaching to myself too here!).

Last week, at the church I am a part of, I preached on Acts 2:42-48. We spent sometime looking at what happened when a group of people become devoted to God and one another. If you have the time- no pun intended- can I encourage you to read this passage and imagine what our lives would be like without consumerism and busyness? Perhaps our early Christmas present to Christ is to give him the present of a reconsidered life and a focus on relationships that are Regular, Restful and result in Restoration, for us, those around us and our world.

Merry Christmas,
Dave.

Planning for 2007

2006-11-08T02:02:00.000+10:00

As the year draws to a close, we often begin to think about, and plan towards, the upcoming year. Schools are sorting out their curriculum, staff and timetables. Churches too are sorting out their core activities. They may well be considering a new vision for 2007, planning the preaching schedule and working out when to have the church camp. All this is absolutely valid and needs to happen. I have a few other suggestions, though, for evangelical churches to add to their calendars. These suggestions are just starters:

Sunday March 4 2007 -- Clean Up Australia Day

Wednesday March 21 2007 -- International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Harmony Day in Australia)

26 April - 13 May 2007 -- Fair Trade Fortnight

Of course, there are many more that could be added. But, of course, no one can cover everything. It would be good, though, for churches who usually don't get involved in such public events to intentionally be active in some as part of their core activities in 2007. These things should not just be left to the lefty fringe in the church, but should be embraced by all.

Clive Hamilton: Churches could hold key to salvation for the Left

2006-11-01T16:42:00.000+10:00

In my last post, I suggested that Christians ought to be careful of the Left-Right spectrum in their interaction with politics. The post was considering faith and politics from the faith perspective.

Today, I stumbled across - and skimmed - an interesting article by Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute. Not a Christian, he suggests: Churches could hold key to salvation for the Left This article considers faith and politics from the political perspective (thereby bringing back the Left-Right distinction).

Here's a couple of excerpts:

Traditionally, the churches have attended to and represented the deeper aspects of life, those that transcend the individualism, materialism and selfishness that so characterise modern affluent societies. It is in this transcendent concern that I believe we can find the roots of a new progressive politics—not in the institutions of the churches themselves but by rediscovering those aspects of life that, at their best, the churches articulate and cultivate.

What the Left desperately needs is a new approach to morality. The error of post-modernism, which grew out of the broad academic Left and now dominates Western society, is that it has no metaphysical foundation for a moral critique. Without a metaphysics that is common to humanity, any moral stance must be relative and therefore be contestable and lacking in conviction.

To whom does God belong?: Beyond Left and Right

2006-10-31T10:59:00.000+10:00

Daniel posted a link to this article by Bill Muehlenberg. I think it warrants some discussion.

Firstly, I believe that Muehlenberg gets it right in his concluding comments. He affirms Rudd’s right to put his thoughts out there and that debate surrounding these issues is healthy. He also makes the key point that “Christian fellowship can and should extend beyond political and ideological lines.”

Moreover, Muehlenberg makes clear that he cannot claim to have “the truth” and that, while he may hold forceful views, he is aware that his opinions may change. Finally, he says that “None of us have a corner on the faith.”

I agree with Muehlenberg on all these points.

There are two general issues, however, I believe are worthy of critique.

Firstly, Muehlenberg chooses to read the current debate within the context of the left-right divide in both politics and theology. In doing this, I believe he is doomed to a conclusion that misses the point. While the publicity surrounding the supposed rise of the religious right in Australia seems to have been the catalyst of Rudd’s campaign, I am not sure that it is the basis from which Christians should be passing judgement.

Dr Brian Edgar, in a speech back in 2004, said: “evangelicalism and evangelical theology is not best defined in terms of left and right. Being evangelical is not to have a position on the left-right spectrum.”

I have often been labeled as Left by people (usually Christians), and been considered Right (ie, conservative) by others (secular people). I have often said and written that I do not subscribe to any institution or system or person or place on the political spectrum, but rather to Jesus. Of course, I fully appreciate that this is according to my understanding of Jesus and that my understanding is incomplete and more than fallible!

Anyway, I agree with Edgar that analyzing the place of (Christian) faith in (Australian) politics from the context of where one is placed on the political spectrum is a trap we should try and avoid. Once we argue according to places on the spectrum, we set-up false dichotomies and place ourselves in boxes that may include values we do not adhere to. Moreover, and perhaps just as importantly, it creates the possibility for one political party or ideology to claim Christianity and the Christian vote. Yet if we refuse to work from the left-right context, then we can avoid these problems and address the more important issue of how our faith works itself out in regards to public issues.

Secondly, in regards to Kevin Rudd, Muehlenberg writes:

“The recent speeches and writings of Rudd give the impression that to be a true follower of Jesus, one must be on the left side of politics and oppose the Howard Government.”

I have only just started reading the latest essay in The Monthly by Kevin Rudd but did begin reading his views on the religion-politics nexus years before he took up the campaign to wrest control of religion from Conservative politics after the last federal election in 2004. As a result of my reading, I think Muehlenberg’s assessment is a little presumptuous.

While Rudd is quite obviously biased, my feeling is that he genuinely believes in what Edgar referred to: that no one political party or ideology has a rightful claim on the Christian vote. While I think Rudd wants to ensure that the Coalition does not make this claim, I do not believe that the obvious response is that Rudd is trying to secure the vote for the Labour Party.

There is no doubt that Rudd’s personal beliefs are that the gospel is both personal and social good news. I think Rudd does see that the gospel compels him to support some ideas and policies that may traditionally belong to the Left. But is Rudd suggesting that the ALP is the party all Christians should vote for? No. Here is what he has said:

“we [the ALP] refuse to accept the implied proposition from our political opponents that God has somehow become the wholly-owned subsidiary of the political conservatives – Liberal, National or Family First. No political party owns God.”

So, I don’t think this should be an argument about Left and Right and which one is right. It is not about who is in and who is out. Rather, hopefully Rudd’s campaign helps bring some balance and sense to the issue of faith and politics. If we get involved in the spectrum debates then we fail to see that the gospel supersedes any political party or structure that we may construct. So yes, we should be engaging our political world, but let’s do so honestly.

The Iron Lady and the Iron Lung

2006-10-29T02:55:00.000+10:00

We have just returned from a week of holiday in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana (which actually means capital in Kazakh!). While there, we visited the recently opened Museum of the President. The museum is in the old Parliament building – which is not very old – and contains information on President Nazarbayev’s history and a many displays of the gifts he has received from other nations and oil companies!

There was one piece of history that I found particularly interesting. A personally signed letter from Lady Margaret Thatcher – dated 1991 (I think). The letter began with a friendly salutation telling Nazarbayev that she enjoyed her recent stay. Then she got to the point. Lady Thatcher let the President know that she was pleased with the way he was opening up the economy and in particularly, the tobacco business. She wrote that she “from to time” provides advice to Philip Morris and that she believes they are a most respectable company which she would readily recommend to the President. Finally, Thatcher ended the letter by reaffirming Nazarbayev’s opening of the markets and, most importantly, her strong support by the fine company of Philip Morris, especially in regards to their tobacco products!

Climate Change

2006-10-21T12:34:00.000+10:00

I was emailed info on the upcoming Walk Against Warming Day. I won't be able to make it, but maybe some of you guys will.

If you think that climate change is not a Christian issue, have a look at this paper by Dr Brian Edgar.

If you think that climate change is not a social justice issue, consider this info forwarded to me by Di:

New Report: Climate change refugees will result from water supply threat

Expert says politicians’ strong words on climate change must be matched by action

Millions of climate change refugees will result from the impact of global warming on water supplies in poor countries unless urgent action is taken, says a new report from Christian relief and development agency Tearfund.

The report, Feeling the Heat, states that there are already an estimated 25 million ‘environmental refugees’ around the world, and that this figure is likely to increase as rain patterns continue to change and floods and storms become more frequent. It cites examples of where the exodus has already begun:

· Poor crop yields are forcing more and more Mexicans to risk death by illegally fleeing to the USA.

· One in five Brazilians born in the arid north-east of the country are moving to avoid drought.

· The spread of the Gobi desert, at a rate of 4,000 square miles a year, is forcing the populations of three provinces in China to abandon their homes.

· In Nigeria, 1,350 square miles of land are turning to desert each year. Farmers and herdsmen are being forced to move to the cities.

Tearfund says that without urgent action world governments will lose the fight to tackle the world water crisis and the growing threat of climate change refugees. Feeling the Heat calls for governments at the UN Climate Change conference in Nairobi in a fortnight’s time (Nov 6-17) to move towards a global framework for cutting C02 emissions that goes beyond the existing Kyoto Protocol, and to commit billions more pounds to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

The report states: “There will be millions more thirsty, hungry and ill poor people living in high risk areas of the world by the end of the century. It makes sense politically, economically and morally, for governments to act with urgency now.”

Says Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director of Tearfund: “One of the most devastating impacts of climate change is on water supply. In some parts of the world, floods, storms and poor rainfall are beginning to have catastrophic effects, threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.”

In the report’s Foreword, Sir John Houghton, former Chair of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that politicians’ strong words on climate change must now be matched by sufficient investment and strong action to cut global emissions, and help for the poorest nations adapt to climate change on their doorstep. A key to this will be helping poorer nations manage existing water supplies better.

Says Sir John: “If your house is on fire, do you urgently try to save it, or throw your hands up in despair and walk away?Well, the house is on fire and it requires much more determined efforts to bring it under control and put it out. The UN climate change conference in Nairobi is an opportunity for failings to be addressed. Time is running out on us and Governments need to act much more responsibly, effectively and quickly.”

Phillip Adams: Amen to Christian social activists

2006-10-11T18:08:00.000+10:00

Adams explains why he supports Kevin Rudd as Australia's future PM -- read it here

Howard, the culture wars and the future

2006-10-09T15:19:00.000+10:00

An interesting article from The Age.
Robert Manne writes that, in a recent speech, "John Howard effectively claimed victory in Australia's culture wars. The boast was premature but far from empty."

Some grabs:

The anti-Howard intelligentsia have often described him as a mere opportunist. This seems to me quite wrong. Howard is a man of old-fashioned and dogmatic opinions and emotions. He will act on these principles at least up to the point where adherence to them seriously threatens his grip on power.
I know I have, a times, viewed some of Howard's politics as opportunist.

[Howard] quickly saw how he could use the hostility to Aboriginal rights, multiculturalism and refugees unleashed by Pauline Hanson to destabilise Labor and advance his conservative-populist version of Australia.
It would, of course, be foolish for those who want to explain the Howard Government's cultural victories to ignore the fact that it has presided over 10 years of steady non-inflationary economic growth.

...

John Howard's form of Liberalism is highly vulnerable because it is composed of two incompatible strands. One is unrestrained economic individualism, the other social conservatism. Citizens are told simultaneously to devote their lives, on the one hand, to material acquisition and to work, and on the other, to the preservation of family, community and church.
This is an area that I think has put enormous strain on many families and caused community confusion.

University of Destruction

2006-09-26T10:30:00.000+10:00

Yesterday I was listening to the local Christian radio network. They were discussing on it the grime statistics that when many Christian young people go to university (or college) that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of young people that enter as Christians, graduate saying that they are no longer “born again.” The interviewer then introduced David Wheaton, who used to play on the pro tennis circuit. He has written a book called “University of Destruction” that apparently outlines how negative Universities can be for people of Faith. I haven’t read the book so I am not wanting to make comments either way on it, but as I listened to them talk about how higher education places can be negative enviroments for people of faith, it caused me to consider the “faith” that they said young people are loosing. I’ve never been to a secular university, so I don’t know what its like, but this story caused me to ask, “what kind of faith am I handing onto my children if after four years of uni it could be wiped out?”

As a Dad I want to bring my boys into adulthood with some great foundations, but also room to discover what faith is. To me Uni should be a great place for a young person of faith, to both explore what following Jesus means for them and hopefully also confirm that some of the foundations they have received are indeed that, foundational. So my question, what would you teach my four boys that would give them room for their own freedom of faith but also gave them foundations so that faith is not swept away by a tsunami of secularism when they hit university?

Dave

Next-Wave E-Zine: A Lesson From History, The Need for Discerning Church Leaders

2006-09-19T18:54:00.000+10:00

This month's Next-Wave has been published. If anyone has come here after reading my article - welcome! Feel free to comment/discuss here.

Rudd on Christians in Politics

2006-09-19T11:01:00.000+10:00

The following is an excerpt from a speech given by the Opposition's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Kevin Rudd at the National Forum on Australia’s Christian Heritage hosted around 6 weeks ago.

These comments appear after a historical discussion of Christianity in Australia and the ALP and before his concluding remarks citing the issues of Industrial Relations Reform, Asylum Seekers and Global Warming as three of the key ethical issues in Australia's current political debate.

----------

Forms of Christian Engagement today

That brings us to the present where I would like to reflect briefly on the various models of political

engagement adopted by Christian politicians today – and in doing so, I draw extensively on remarks I

made last year in my New College lecture on Christianity and Politics. In that lecture, I outlined five

models of Christian engagement in our national political life.

Model number one is what I call the “vote for me because I’m a Christian”. This is the model that I

find to be most repugnant. It is the model that says that simply on the basis of my external profession

of the Christian faith, that those of similar persuasions should vote for me.

This is about as persuasive as saying that because I am a Sydney Swans supporter, that all other

Sydney Swans supporters should vote for me as well because we ostensively adhere to the same belief

system.

This model is alive and well in the United States. Thankfully it is much less alive and much less well

here in Australia. Although there are some dangerous signs that for certain Christian constituencies

within our country, this represents an increasingly appealing message.

It is a model for which I can find no underpinning scriptural, doctrinal or theological authority.

Model number two says “vote for me because I’m Christian and because I have a defined set of views

on a narrowly defined set of questions concerning sexual morality”.

Regrettably this model has an increasing number of supporters within the broader Christian

community.

It is a community which tends to read down rather than read up the ethical teachings of the New

Testament – producing a narrow “tick the box” approach to passing so-called Christian “morals” tests.

I see very little evidence of that approach in the Gospels.

I see much more evidence of it in 17th and 18th century European pietism.

Once again it will come as no surprise to you here that I am not attracted to model number two either.

Model number three says something like this: take models number one and two above and add to

them the additional tag of “family values”. That is “vote for me because I am a Christian; vote for me

because I have a defined set of views on questions of private sexual morality; and vote for me also

because I wrap myself in the garments of something called ‘family values’”. Regrettably it is my view

that the term “family values” has become one of the most used and abused terms in the Australian

political lexicon. Once again, I beg to part company because this concept of “family values” is

invariably a narrow one and invariably leaves to one side the ability of working families economically

to survive.

Model number four is along the following lines: tick models one, two and three above but then add

the following offensive play. Unleash a political fusillade against anyone who dares suggest that

Christianity might have something concrete to say about the broader political, economic and social

questions in life. And justify this fusillade with that hardy perennial: “religion should be kept out of

politics”.

This is a view which says anyone who seeks to articulate from a Christian perspective a view on Iraq, a

view on poverty in the world, a view on foreign policy more generally, a view on refugees and asylum

seekers, a view on indigenous Australians, or a view, dare I say it, on workplace relations, then a pox

on your houses, and may judgement be rained down upon you from the heavens above.

That’s what I’d describe in a somewhat partisan note as the Gospel according to St. Peter – particularly

if you were to look at what the Treasurer, Peter Costello had to say last year about Phillip Aspinall, the

Primate of Australia, and head of the Anglican Church. When Aspinall raised some questions about

the workplace relations debate, Mr Costello responded by saying the Archbishop hasn’t studied

industrial relations, he’s only studied theology. Of course that’s code language for saying Christian

leaders cannot have an informed and legitimate Christian view of matters beyond ‘I’m a Christian, I

have a defined set of views on the life issues and I talk about family values’. That’s model number

four. And I don’t like this model either.

Model number five is along these lines: it says that the Gospel is both a spiritual Gospel and a social

Gospel. And if it is a social Gospel then it is in part a political Gospel because politics is the means by

which society chooses to exercise its collective power. In other words the Gospel is as much about the

decisions I make about my own life as it is about how I act in society and how in turn I should act, and

react, in relation to the exercise of the coordinated power of society through the State.

This view derives from the simple principle that the Gospel which tells human kind that they must be

born-again, is the same Gospel that says that at the time of the Great Judgement that Christians will be

asked not how pious they have been but instead if they helped feed the hungry, clothe the naked and

visit the lonely. In this respect, the Gospel is an exhortation for social action.

-------------

Kevin Rudd, “CHRISTIANITY, THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY AND CURRENT CHALLENGES IN AUSTRALIAN POLITICS”, Canberra: 7 August 2006, pp.8-10.

Sensible response

2006-09-18T12:38:00.000+10:00

I think this is a sensible response to the Pope's recent lecture.

A 7 week reflection

2006-09-17T00:26:00.000+10:00

This blog has focused – over the last two years – significantly on issues surrounding the engagement of cultures, worldviews, values and beliefs. I have also been acutely aware that true understanding of such issues requires more than just abstract or theoretical discussion. I feel it is important that we indeed do discuss what may be the ideal position on things such as war or religious tolerance, but that our understanding needs to also include experience.

Having spent the past two-and-half months overseas – 7 weeks of which have been in Kazakhstan – Anouchka and I have had some time for initial reflection on the “clash” of cultures, worldviews, values and beliefs. We had not discussed with each other what our reflections had been until this morning. What we discovered is that we both felt exactly the same way.

We both sense that our experience has seen us arrive at a somewhat unusual place where a seemingly incongruous combination of reactions coexist. Being amongst people from very different denominational backgrounds with very different theological positions, philosophies of mission and discipleship we think necessitates an attitude of humble tolerance. There is a definite richness in diversity. Yet at the same time, we feel our own feelings of Australianess and denominational ties have been strengthened and solidified. For us, it is the strengthening of our sense of being Australian Baptists that is, perhaps, most surprising.

We arrived here with a strong belief that we are not in opposition with people of other faiths or cultures. In fact, we felt (and still do) we could learn much from people of other beliefs and cultures. However, we thought this would make us feel more international, multicultural and ecumenical – not Australian or Baptist! Having said this, it is not that we don't feel ecumenical or international. This is where our feelings seem a little confused. Our belief in the need for differing cultures, values and beliefs to be heard and to engage is even stronger...it's just that it so too is our sense of Australianess stronger!

I think this is a good reflection for many in the West and the Islamic world who take an oppositional view to relations between Christians and Muslims or Middle-Easterners or Asian and Australians or Americans. We can hold onto our indigenous culture and beliefs and yet still coexist with others with a spirit of tolerance and the attitude of a learner. To do so, however, requires all of us to see that even if we believe we have the answer, we don't have all the answers. It is possible to develop an ideal position that states this, yet engagement with people of other cultures, faiths and values is so important. Face-to-face engagement allows us to see the human reason for tolerance and peace.

So, while we may feel more Australian now than we did before we arrived, it is not in any nationalistic sense. However, Australia is still home, it is what we know and we do love it...and there is nothing wrong with that!

Life without competition?

2006-09-15T12:56:00.000+10:00

If the following quote is correct, what system might Christians call for?

“Christian ethics has a voice in challenging the values on which our current economic system is based. Competition pits us against each other and dehumanizes us to one another; buying and selling based on wants created by economic privilege minimizes the real needs of basic sustenance for the majority of people harmed by the free market; and benefiting from the labor and production of goods made possible by exploitation and oppression received many a prophetic tirade from the prophets in the Hebrew Bible.”

(The Impact of the American Dream on Evangelical Ethics, by Wyndy Corbin, 2005)

(Whose) Values Test?

2006-09-12T21:15:00.000+10:00

Well gang, what do we think of this?

Why seek holiness?

2006-09-08T00:47:00.000+10:00

I was deeply moved by a story I heard today.

We have a school driver take us to work each day. This morning, he told us about becoming a believer. To cut what was a very long story short, he spoke of the witness of the staff at our school. His observation was that these people were friendly, honest, kind and patient. He said that he had not seen such people before.

It made me think. I have been a little critical of the holiness tradition. I still feel some of my reservations are valid. If striving to be holy simply means not drinking, smoking or dancing, then I think we have missed the point. However, if holiness relates to the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control, then I think we are absolutely called to this.

Yet still, there is one significant qualification to this. I don’t think we should seek to bear the fruit of the spirit for our own sake – or to feel as though we are doing the ‘right thing’. Instead, I wonder if there is, perhaps, a missionary aspect to striving for holiness. When others see our genuine difference – the organic, natural bearing of fruit, then they might think: I have never witnessed such people.

My understanding of the God’s narrative is that he has always blessed his people with the express purpose that they would be a blessing to others. He is a missionary God and calls us to be a missionary people.

I have been challenged greatly to take more seriously the call to bear the fruit of the spirit; not for my sake, but for His. Finally, to sum all this up, many people in the West are rightly calling for a paradigm shift in our thinking and practice in regards to church and mission. Yet what I have written about here, I think, is the real challenge we are called to: a complete paradigm shift in our thinking and practice in regards to life: selflessness. Now just how to enact this, this, and of course this.

Praying for the world

2006-09-01T10:45:00.000+10:00

I'm not sure yet how easy/helpful this would be, but am willing to give it a try.

My parents have their homepage set to our Kazakh blog so they can keep up with all we're doing. This got me thinking - a simple and probably unoriginal idea, I know - why not choose a webpage to make as my/your homepage for one week?

Every time you log-on, you can say a prayer for that nation, situation, war, famine, people, etc. You may say a quick 5 second prayer one day and you may stop for 3 minutes another day.
Not only that, but by having it as your homepage for one week, you may read about the people/situation and they/it may be embedded in your mind so you are praying for them while driving, around the dinner table -- whatever!

Finding a site may prove too much work to maintain each week. Possibly people could suggest a site here and then on Mondays a little post encourages us to make that site our homepage until the next Monday?

I dunno, it's just an idea at this stage -- do you think it could work? Suggestions/feedback please!

Eradicating Poverty: Now this is interesting...what do you think?

2006-08-28T01:45:00.000+10:00

Got an email from Bonnie today with a link to this site.

This seems to me to have magnificent potential. I have not had a chance to check out all the details yet, but hope to over the next few days.
Anyway, check it out and share with us all your thoughts!

Real Change

2006-08-23T09:44:00.000+10:00

Jules and I have been working through some things with our no 2. Caleb. As a part of it, the other day I wrote a sheet that went on the fridge that was entitled “Caleb becoming a Great Attitude Boy.” You may have already guessed that we use this to write down the positive things we see Caleb doing to encourage him in those “positive attitude” actions and as a consequence a change in attitude.

A couple of Days went by after we first commenced this and I asked Jules how it was going. She said, “he hasn’t changed his attitude, but he is wanting to write down every little thing he has done that he thinks is good.” In other words Caleb was lacking in some integrity between his thinking and his behaviour. I was going to “speak” to him about this, when I realised that the difficulty I have with this inconsistency is because of my Greek thinking background.

Now, before you start calling me “Jimmy”, what I mean by “Greek thinking” is that our society usually approaches change in the following way. Right thinking before right behaviour. Hence every time something goes wrong with our kids, the teachers get the blame and we hear over the airwaves that, “…they are not “teaching” kids the right things!” when maybe a big part of the problem is we give them the information of change without the environment or actions of change in the home. My eagerness to correct Caleb was coming from the same perspective. He was “acting” a good attitude, but wasn’t thinking it and I was going to correct this, and “vala” he would change. But is that a complete way to bring about change?

Hebrew thinking, unlike the Greeks, apparently starts with right behaviour and hopes that the right thinking will follow. Both the Greek and Hebrew perspective can be valid; it’s just that I think we tend to be a little more European than Middle Eastern in our approach to change. So what are the places we want to see change in? Change of Forgiveness, support, justice, love, commitment, unity, happiness, patience, generosity, hope. If you, like me, wait for the thinking/feelings to come, before you act, you might be waiting a long time.

I think even our blogging can be dangerous at times, because we can "talk" a lot about high ideals but those ideals become just another "Greek" forum, that doesn't result in actual change, what do you think?