A cruel budget and a bleak future

In his budget speech, Joe Hockey said we all have to make a contribution. But when the contribution demanded from people destroys their lives, that's too high a price to pay. He said we need to stop thinking of self-interest and start thinking of the national interest. But it's not selfish to want to survive (and even prosper). And far from being in the national interest, these cuts will create a very bleak future for Australia. 

As every Australian school-child learns, European colonization of this country started with the transportation of convicts. At least some of those convicts were sent here for stealing because they had no other means of survival. The question I always ask myself when I look back at that history is would I steal in order to feed my family? The answer unequivocally is yes. It was purely a hypothetical question as I knew that would not happen in Australia. We had the safety nets in place to ensure it didn't. Well we used to. The latest budget has taken those safety nets away. 

Joe Hockey has announced that people under 30 will have to be unemployed for six months before receiving Newstart. Six months without money is a very long time. That's six months without being able to pay for rent, phone, internet, electricity, bus fares, petrol, food, clothes or even tampons. In six months, you can be thrown out of your home - in fact, you probably will be thrown out of your home if you can't pay rent. In six months, In six months, you can become severely depressed and suicidal - compounded by the fact you can't afford to go to a doctor and seek medical attention. In six months, your entire outlook can change, you can lose all hope and get stuck in a mindset that never goes away. Six months without money is enough to ruin a life. 

So what are these people meant to do for this six months? Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey's answer would be to find a job. But finding a job is actually a lot harder with no money. Imagine looking for a job when you can't afford a newspaper or the internet to apply for jobs (and yes, I know job seeker centres and the library offer free access to newspapers and internet, but these can also be hard to get to for some people without money for a bus.) Imagine looking for a job when you don't have a phone, address or easy access to your email for potential employers to contact you. Imagine applying for jobs when you have no car and/or no ability to afford petrol or bus fares (which not only affects your ability to get to job interviews, but your ability to get to a job once you find one). Imagine going to job interviews when you have no money for clothes, shoes, haircuts, razors to shave if you're a man or make-up (which is almost a necessity in some jobs) if you're a female. Imagine applying for jobs when your confidence is low and your depression is high (and it would take a very optimistic person for this not to occur after having no money for so long).

So if getting a job is made harder for them, what actually happens to these people. And what happens to Australia? As already alluded to, crime rates will probably go up. If people need to steak to eat, they will steal. The threat of jail will also not be as much of a deterrent to those with no roof over their head and no food on the table. Depression is likely to rise and this may very well lead to more suicides, as people cannot afford the treatment they need. There is likely to be more people suffering from health conditions that are made worse than they should be because people couldn't afford to seek early medical intervention. Charities are likely to be swamped by people - and may need to turn a lot of people away because they just don't have the resources to cope with the sudden influx. People are also more likely to be forced into exploitative working conditions - or make bad choices about employment and financial resources. Debt will probably rise, leaving some people in a situation that, even if they do get a job, they're still barely surviving because their debt repayments are so high. 

This does not sound like a prosperous country to me. It sounds very depressing. And I don't see how any of it is in the national interest.

I've focused mainly on young people who will lose Newstart, because theirs is the most desperate case. But the cuts to family tax benefit and changes to medical expenses will leave a lot of other people without enough money to live on. What exactly is Joe Hockey proposing they contribute? Their food, their rent, their electricity or their medical expenses. Which one of those essentials would he contribute himself to the national interest? 

It's pointless to talk about a healthy economy without asking what a healthy economy is for. By itself, it's just numbers on the page. But it is important to have a healthy economy if it serves the best interests of the society. When a healthy economy helps to build a prosperous, generous and inclusive society, then that is a good thing. But when we marginalise people and make people suffer to get that healthy economy, then something is wrong. 

The cuts announced in the budget may attack our deficit. But they also attack people - vulnerable people, in particular. It will attack - and maybe even cost - people's lives. Is lowering the deficit really worth the price of our soul? 

What would Jesus say about the Commission of Audit?

Yesterday, the Commission of Audit was released, which recommended huge cuts to government spending. While the Liberal Government has pointed out that the Commission of Audit is not the budget, it has not ruled out adopting the recommendations. Australians have already been warned to prepare ourselves for a tightening of the belts and it seems that at least some of the recommendations will be adopted.

Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, criticised the Audit, saying it was 'a plan to make sure that families get less while millionaires get more.' I'm not an economist (or even a well-informed politician) but in reading through the summaries, that's what it looks like to me too. 

Some of the cuts include payments for visiting the doctor, changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and scrapping of Family Tax Part B and new means-testing for Family Tax Part A. These cuts are going to severely hurt people on low incomes - the people who can least afford them. And in some cases, for those who cannot afford medication or who find it hard to put food on the table as it is, they may have a devastating impact. It seems that growing the economy is more important than people's lives.

As I said, I'm not an economist. I haven't read the whole report. And I'm certainly not Jesus and can't claim to speak for him. But as I read through the summaries, I couldn't help wondering what Jesus would think about them. And this is my guess.

Firstly, Jesus spoke a lot about the poor. He told people to sell all they have and give it to the poor (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30, Mark 10:17-31). He said the Spirit of the Lord had anointed him to preach good news to the poor (Luke 4:18). He told people when they had a banquet to invite the poor (Luke 14:13). Furthermore, the bible is filled with verses about caring for the poor. You would have to ignore large chunks of the bible to avoid reaching the conclusion that God (and Jesus) care about how we treat the poor.

Therefore, it seems pretty conclusive that Jesus would not be pleased about cuts that hurt the poor. Nor would he be pleased about cuts which favour the rich at the expense of the poor. The Commission of Audit feels a bit like the opposite of the banquet Jesus speaks about - the poor are left out, while the rich are invited. So what would Jesus say? I don't know. But my feeling is it might sound something like what Jeremiah said: 'For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me' (Jeremiah 18:21).

Jesus also cared about the sick. A large part of his ministry involved healing people. What would he say about cuts that make it hard for people to afford a doctor or get the medication they need? Again, I don't know. But I can't imagine a person who spent such a large part of his ministry healing others would want anyone to be excluded from things that heal. The bible doesn't record any example of Jesus turning someone away because they didn't have the money to pay him.

And what would Jesus say about the scrapping of Family Tax Part B and the tougher means-testing for Family Tax Part A? Well, Jesus doesn't mention those payments because they weren't around in his day, but he does mention widows. And in fact the bible has a lot to say about widows. And every single time widows are mentioned, it is not that we should encourage widows to go out and get a job. No, it's telling us to take care of them. Now people might rightly say that not all (or even most) of people on Family Tax Benefit are widows - although I might point out that some are. But the reason why the bible talks so much about taking care of widows is that they did not have the economic (or social support) of a husband. And if the bible talks so much about helping them, I think we can assume Jesus would care about anyone with kids and without a partner.

Just one more note on that, in a well-known bible passage, Jesus says that the widow who put a mite into the temple treasury gave more than all the others (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4). It's often used to encourage people to give more to the church. But it is also says something about how a small amount can actually be huge when you don't have much money to begin with. In relative terms, cuts to the poor are bigger than cuts to people with more money. Even small decreases in Family Tax Benefit can be huge decreases when we consider what they mean to the people affected.

Another recommendation is to lower growth in the minimum wage. Jesus didn't speak at all about this. But the bible does say some things that have relevance. In Malachi 3:5, it says that God will be a swift witness against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages. Deuteronomy 24:14 says not to abuse a needy and destitute worker. Jeremiah 22:13 says it is terrible for those who make people work for nothing and do not pay them their wages. It seems clear that God cares that people get paid a decent wage for the work that they do.

Well that's my take on what Jesus might think about the Commission of Audit. I have no doubt that other Christians will reach different conclusions. But even though interpretations of the bible may vary, I find it difficult to understand how any interpretation can ignore that Jesus cares about the poor and cares for those who are hurting. And if he does, then surely he must care about cuts which hurt the poor and the vulnerable.

Proverbs 22:16 says that 'Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.' The proposed recommendations are designed to improve our economy. Maybe they will. But they will also increase our poverty - not just poverty in financial terms of the many Australians who are already finding it hard to make ends meet - but the poverty of spirit and inclusion and compassion and engagement. We will all be poorer as a result - even if Australia's economy looks better.  

For more reading please see:

The Australian: Bitter medicine to cure budget

Commission of Audit recommends cradle-to-grave cuts in report released by Federal Government

The backlash against Christians supporting gay marriage: why we need dialogue and communication rather than condemnation and exclusion

Recently, frontline singer of well-known Christian band, Dan Haseltine, sent out tweets showing his support for gay marriage.

Now what concerns me most about this incident isn't that people disagreed with Dan Haseltine. I personally am very supportive of gay marriage, but I know many people (some of whom are my best friends) who are against gay marriage on biblical grounds. And I think any reasonable person can see why Christians would be against gay marriage (Note, I am not saying they are right, just that I can understand their perspective).

What does concern me is the whole backlash that Dan Haseltine has received after his Tweets. Some Christians (and some Christian radio stations) have decided not to play Jars of Clay music any more. There is this idea among some Christians that, if he supports gay marriage, then he's not really a Christian.

It's an attitude I've come across before. I've heard a sermon where the pastor said a a public figure couldn't possibly be a Christian because she supports gay marriage. (And yes, there were people shouting out Amens - I wasn't one of them). I've seen numerous posts and comments on Facebook where people say that anyone who supports gay marriage is not a real Christian.

And even if someone doesn't come right out and say you're not a Christian, it's implied - or at least it's implied that you're not a very good one. I've heard people say that anyone who supports gay marriage just doesn't understand the bible. I've had a former pastor start quoting bible verses about false prophets to me when I voiced my support of gay marriage. And then there's that good old chestnut 'Well, you either believe the bible or you don't.' That usually comes when people have nothing left to say and is a sign that they want the conversation to be ended.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I would never expect every single Christian to automatically change their mind on this issue. But what does annoy me is the idea that, if I support gay marriage, it must be because I'm either not a real Christian or I don't take the bible seriously.

I do take the bible very seriously. It's because I take it seriously that I believe we should love our neighbours (and neighbour means everyone). It's because I take it seriously that I believe we should always fight for justice. It's because I take it seriously that I believe, when people are oppressed, God cares. It's because I take it seriously that I believe God created each and every one of us and that each and every one of us has value and is special in God's eyes. It's because I take it seriously that I believe no-one has any right to judge another person.

And it's because I take it seriously that I know we cannot take the whole thing literally. It's because I take it seriously that I know it came to us through different people and different cultures. It's because I take it seriously that I know the same people who are very good at quoting the 'homosexuality' verses will often look confused when you ask them whether a woman should marry someone who rapes her (also mentioned in the bible). It's because I take it seriously that I know we cannot isolate verses, but must read every verse in the context of the whole. It's because I take it seriously that I believe the things that get mentioned again and again in the bible (like love and justice) are more important than a few commandments (amongst a whole lot of other commandments that we ignore).

Okay, you may not agree with how I read the bible. You may not agree with how I interpret the verses on homosexuality. You may not agree with the conclusions I reach.

But don’t tell me I don't take the bible seriously. And don't tell me that I just don't care what God says. And don't tell me I'm not a real Christian.

There are many different ways to read the bible. If there wasn't, we would probably just have the one denomination instead of the 33,830 denominations that currently exist (according to the World Christian Encyclopaedia of 2001 - there's probably quite a lot more now). So if we're going to start saying someone isn't a Christian because they read the bible differently to us and have different ideas, then basically we're going to end up with 33,830 separate groups of Christians who all believe they're a Christian and nobody else is.

And considering this is an issue that affects lots of people and has the power to do great harm to the LGBT community, shouldn't we at least be talking about it? This reaction that simply tells someone they're not a Christian shuts down communication. And sometimes I wonder whether that's the aim. People don't want to think about it. They don't want to consider what other Christians have to say on the issue. So they decide they're not Christians and they don't need to listen to them (or even, it seems, their music if they happen to be a lead singer of a Christian rock band).

There have been many disagreements in the church in the past - dietary regulations for the early Christians, the nature and substance of the Eucharist, whether women should be ordained - to name just a couple. And I cannot think of any disagreement which would not have benefited by more discussion and dialogue - instead of exclusion and condemnation.

And that goes for both sides. Those who are against gay marriage should listen to the people who support it and those who support it should listen to the people who are against it. And maybe we both have something to learn.

In the end, we have to decide what matters most - sticking to our own convictions or allowing God to show us the truth. And truly, what do we have to fear from just listening to people?     

You can read more about that Twitter conversation in the following articles:

Huffington Post: Dan Haseltine, 'Jars Of Clay' Lead Singer, Tweets Support For Gay Marriage  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/jars-of-clay-gay-marriage_n_5214742.html)

The Wire: Jars of Clay's Christian fans lash out after the lead singer tweets for same sex marriage (http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/jars-of-clays-christian-fans-lash-out-after-the-lead-singer-tweets-for-same-sex-marriage/361256/)

Dan Haseltine's own blog post about his reasons behind the Twitter conversation (http://danhaseltine.com/blog/2014/4/25/reset-contexttangentapology.html)

Prioritising the love economy

In today's environment, education is slanted towards getting a career, mothers are encouraged to go back to work as quickly as possible, we want to move people from the disability pension onto Newstart and now people are encouraged to work for as long as possible before retiring. 

The message is loud and clear. You need to work for a wage to contribute to society (although I do understand there are other reasons for the later retirement age). 

And that may make some kind of sense, if economic growth is to be the number one priority for Australia. And often it seems as though the politicians at least think it should be. But is economic growth really the most important thing in our lives. After all, what point does it serve? More money for the sake of more money doesn't seem to make a lot of sense - unless that money is actually getting us things that we value and are important. 

And surprising as it may seem, a lot of the things we value and that we think are important are not tied to money at all. 

In From Naked Earth to Superspecies, David Suzuki talks about what Hazel Henderson calls the love economy, which 'includes all the productive work that humans do that does not involve an exchange of money - things like raising families, doing community work, taking care of the elderly, being active in a club or charity.' Suzuki says it 'may be impossible to put a price tag on these activities, but they are the very glue that holds society together.'

If our focus is on economic growth for its own sake, then these kind of things get de-valued. No monetary transactions take place. Their contribution to the economy is indirect. 

However, this is why the focus on economic growth is so misplaced. Because while these things do not contribute to economic growth, they do contribute a lot of value to society. And when we focus on economic growth we move people away from this very important, very valuable (but unpaid) work that they are doing. 

When we create policies to encourage mothers (or fathers as the case may be) into the workforce sooner and our ageing population to stay in the workforce longer, we are making the assumption that being in the paid workforce is more important than anything that might otherwise be doing. 

But that's simply not the case. 

Taking care of children may not pay much, but it's an extremely important job and adds tremendous value to society. When kids are loved and educated, they flourish. When they feel valued, they grow up to be adults who value others. Yes, there are exceptions. And no, I would never suggest that this means every parents should stay home with their children. Kids can flourish in daycare settings as well. But to say to a person who wants to stay home with their kid, what you're doing is less important than working is ludicrous.  

I personally returned to work when my child was six months' old. I had an office job, where I would basically sit there doing nothing all day. I would think of how much more valuably my time could be spent if I was at home with my child. So I quit. I'm lucky that I found a job where I could work from home. It didn't pay much, but I was one of the lucky ones. I could do that. Nowadays, with the changes to parenting payment making single parents go back to work when their youngest child turn eight, many parents will never have the opportunity to spend as much time with their kids as I did. And while we never had much money, what we did have (time together) I believe was way more important. 

Now from an economics perspective, I suppose my time at work (sitting at a desk twiddling my thumbs) was more important than the work I did when I left (raising children showing them love, educating them about the world around him). Because the work I did twiddling my thumbs paid a lot more than the work I did when I left - even after I found my work-from-home job. 

But what will matter most in 10 years time? Well as it is now 10 years later, I can answer that. The time I spent at work matters not one jot! Any money I made then doesn't matter much now. But I am so happy for that time I spent with my kids. And I believe it has helped us have the close, loving relationship we share today. And, from a societal perspective, I have children who care a lot about the world around them. My eldest son can't wait until he's 18 so he can vote. He cares passionately about foreign aid and the rights of others. My youngest son is the most friendliest, caring child I've ever met. And I do believe it's because I was there, talking to them, getting them to think, showing them that they are loved. 

Again, I have nothing against those who want to work. For many people, it's a better option. Just don't assume it's the best option. Because it's not. 

Parents (as well as retirees) also do a lot of volunteer work - whether it's at the school, the church, the sporting fields, the community club. And that also is of huge benefit to society. For a start, volunteers are often the people assisting, caring and showing compassion when money won't buy it! And isn't it nice to know there are some things you don't need money to buy. And that kind of help doesn't just contribute to society, it can completely turn a life around. 

Now the more we push people to stay in the workforce longer, the less time they will have to do volunteer work. And what happens then? They became paid services that not everyone can afford. And if you take something like help with homework, some people will be able to pay for tutors, while those relying on volunteers will no longer have that help there. And so the gap between rich and poor grows bigger. 

And our society becomes less and less able to care for people and less and less compassionate. 

But should we care about those who need services but can't pay for them? After all, what do they contribute to the economy? 

Maybe not as much as others - but that's just a reason why economic growth shouldn't be our primary focus. Because when society shows compassion and assistance to its most vulnerable, it's not just the vulnerable that benefit, it's all of us.  

This may surprise some people, but I do believe the economy is important - to a certain extent. But I also believe it's far less important than the love economy. And when the love economy suffers because we're prioritising the money economy over it, then something is wrong.  

Easter - a celebration of life

Easter is ultimately a celebration of life.

It is the day we remember Christ's resurrection from the dead. But it is also a day to remember that that resurrection gave new life to us all - and by all I don't mean a narrow group of Christians who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour, but the whole of Creation.

The symbols of Easter remind us of this new life. We don't eat chocolate bunnies just because they look cute. They are a reminder of new life. We don't eat chocolate eggs just because they're a good shape and can be wrapped in foil. They are also a symbol of new life. And while we may miss it in Australia, even the time of Easter is a symbol of new life. Spring is a time when nature is coming to life again - the flowers are blooming, animal babies are being born. Spring is a time of renewal.

So Easter should be a time to celebrate life - by recognising the beauty and wonder of the life we see around us. It should also be a time to reflect that this world we see is not just the loving Creation of the God we remember on Easter, but the world he came to save - the world he loves and cares for and the world he will renew. Easter is not just about humans.

Yet how can we celebrate life today when we fail to protect that life at other times. How can we worship a God who brings new life on Easter and yet turn our backs to the destruction of life throughout the rest of the year.

I've heard critical comments from Christians about Christmas and Easter Christians, those people who go to church only on Christmas and Easter. Yet if we embrace the message of new life on Easter and ignore that message for the rest of the year, aren't we also, in some way, Easter Christians? We give life a nodding acknowledgement as we go to church or open our chocolate bunnies and eggs and fail to really think about what a celebration of new life should mean or reflect it in our daily lives.

Life is the diversity of species on this planet. Life is a healthy atmosphere. Life is the conditions that exist on earth to help all life on earth flourish. Life is the wondrous places that exist on this earth.

Life is the animals in our factories, the species that are going extinct, the climate that we are altering.

Life is every single person who lives on this planet - all the people who are struggling, the people who are starving and the people who will lose their homes or their livelihood to climate change. Life is all the people yet to be born - and the world we're leaving them to live in.

If we truly want to celebrate life, then we need to recognise that life is more than just an empty tomb, life after death or salvation for those who call themselves Christians. We need that life is all around us - and it is that life we see all around us that God cares about.

And we need to commit ourselves to the protection of that life. How can we celebrate something if we are complicit in its destruction? To truly celebrate something is to recognise its value and do all that we can to protect it and see it flourish.

So let us celebrate new life this Easter - not just with chocolate bunnies and eggs, but with a recognition of the value of all life - and a commitment to look after it.

Abstaining from meat on Good Friday - have we missed the point?

I'm always amazed by the people who never spare a thought for God in their everyday lives, but get very legalistic about abstaining from meat on Good Friday - sometimes to the point of being horrified when someone else does eat meat on that day - and I'm not just talking about Catholics. Now there's nothing wrong with abstaining from meat - and there are many good reasons to do so, not all of them religious. But I can't help thinking this legalistic approach kind of misses the point.

After all, didn't Jesus say it's not what a person puts into their mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of their mouth (Matthew 15:11).

I don't think this means we should just scrap the rule about not eating meat on Good Friday - at least for those who want to keep abstaining. I believe that symbolic actions and practices like this are important, meaningful and help turn our thoughts towards God.

But those symbolic actions should never become more important than the reason behind those symbolic actions.

It's pointless abstaining from meat if we don't give any thought to why we might be abstaining from meat.

So why do we?

The reason behind abstaining from meat on Good Friday was to share in the sufferings of Jesus. By denying ourselves, we entered into the suffering that Jesus underwent on that day. And by denying ourselves, hopefully we remember that suffering - because we too are suffering.

Okay, confession time. The meal I eat on Good Friday is often one of the best meals I eat that year. Because while I eat fish and vegetarian meals frequently, I make the Good Friday meal a little bit fancy and a little bit special.

And that kind of defeats the purpose.

Or maybe not.

Because in reality, what actually matters about abstaining from meat is whether we are remembering the suffering of Jesus. We don't have to do this by eating fish. We can do it by denying ourselves something else. We can do this by reflecting on the crucifixion. We can do this by remembering the suffering of people around the world.

You can do this while eating a big beefy steak or a meat pie or a baked fish dish or a bowl of rice.

It's not what we put into our mouths that defile us, it's what comes out of our mouth.

It's what's in our hearts.

And it's the suffering of Jesus that is important - and the suffering of the whole world that he entered into - rather than what we eat.

How we reflect and think about that suffering is up to us. For some, it may mean abstaining from meat. Others may choose different ways to remember it. But it definitely shouldn't become a legalistic rule where abstaining from meat is more important than our reasons for doing so.