tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8335478343218647482024-02-07T13:43:36.381+11:00Fringe FaithFaith, society, ecotheology and social justiceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-26608400345002511542014-05-14T19:38:00.001+10:002014-05-14T19:38:50.232+10:00A cruel budget and a bleak future<div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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).</div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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.</div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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? </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2;">
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? </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-85031378766041896652014-05-02T11:14:00.001+10:002014-05-02T11:14:25.178+10:00What would Jesus say about the Commission of Audit?<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Firstly, Jesus spoke
a lot about the poor</b>. He told people to sell all they have and give it to
the poor (Matthew 19:16-30, <st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Luke 18:18-30</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>,
<st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Mark 10:17-31</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>). 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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Jesus also cared
about the sick</b>. 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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>And what would Jesus
say about the scrapping of Family Tax Part B and the tougher means-testing for
Family Tax Part A</b>? 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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Widow's_Mite_(Le_denier_de_la_veuve)_-_James_Tissot.jpg?uselang=en-gb" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Widow's_Mite_(Le_denier_de_la_veuve)_-_James_Tissot.jpg?uselang=en-gb" height="206" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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, <st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Luke 21:1-4</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>).
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Another recommendation
is to lower growth in the minimum wage</b>. Jesus didn't speak at all about
this. But the bible does say some things that have relevance. In <st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Malachi 3:5</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>, it says that God will be a swift
witness against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages. <st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Deuteronomy 24:14</st2:bcv_smarttag_15> says not to abuse a needy and
destitute worker. <st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Jeremiah 22:13</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well that's my take on what Jesus <i>might</i> 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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<st2:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Proverbs 22:16</st2:bcv_smarttag_15>
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 <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>'s
economy looks better. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For more reading please see:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bitter-medicine-to-cure-budget/story-fn59niix-1226902753187#" target="_blank">The Australian: Bitter medicine to cure budget</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/commission-of-audit-report-released-by-federal-government/5423556" target="_blank">Commission of Audit recommends cradle-to-grave cuts in report released by Federal Government</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-46061261373643219562014-04-27T14:43:00.002+10:002014-04-27T14:43:39.915+10:00The backlash against Christians supporting gay marriage: why we need dialogue and communication rather than condemnation and exclusion<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently, frontline singer of well-known Christian band, Dan
Haseltine, sent out tweets showing his support for gay marriage. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You can read more about that Twitter conversation in the
following articles:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h1 style="background: white; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #111111; font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Huffington Post: Dan
Haseltine, 'Jars Of Clay' Lead Singer, Tweets Support For Gay Marriage </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/jars-of-clay-gay-marriage_n_5214742.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/jars-of-clay-gay-marriage_n_5214742.html</a>)
<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Wire: Jars of Clay's Christian fans lash out after the
lead singer tweets for same sex marriage (<a href="http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/jars-of-clays-christian-fans-lash-out-after-the-lead-singer-tweets-for-same-sex-marriage/361256/">http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/jars-of-clays-christian-fans-lash-out-after-the-lead-singer-tweets-for-same-sex-marriage/361256/</a>)
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dan Haseltine's own blog post about his reasons behind the
Twitter conversation (<a href="http://danhaseltine.com/blog/2014/4/25/reset-contexttangentapology.html">http://danhaseltine.com/blog/2014/4/25/reset-contexttangentapology.html</a>)
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-30909806236022256912014-04-22T21:30:00.000+10:002014-04-22T21:35:53.142+10:00Prioritising the love economy <div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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). </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
In <em style="border: 0px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">From Naked Earth to Superspecies</em>, David Suzuki talks about what <span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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.'</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">But that's simply not the case. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br data-mce-bogus="1" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
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. </div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">And our society becomes less and less able to care for people and less and less compassionate. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">But should we care about those who need services but can't pay for them? After all, what do they contribute to the economy? </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><br clear="none" /></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'Droid Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.428571em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">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. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;"><a href="http://hdwallpaper.freehdw.com/0006/3d-abstract_hdwallpaper_love_55504.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://hdwallpaper.freehdw.com/0006/3d-abstract_hdwallpaper_love_55504.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 1.428571em;">
</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-42028174996411086572014-04-20T09:49:00.001+10:002014-04-20T09:49:48.194+10:00Easter - a celebration of life<div class="MsoNormal">
Easter is ultimately a celebration of life.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>,
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Life is the animals in our factories, the species that are
going extinct, the climate that we are altering. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Images/11001/G155%20Emu%20on%20nest_big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Images/11001/G155%20Emu%20on%20nest_big.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-39143655053809939642014-04-18T10:03:00.002+10:002014-04-18T10:09:25.316+10:00Abstaining from meat on Good Friday - have we missed the point?<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But those symbolic actions should never become more
important than the reason behind those symbolic actions. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's pointless abstaining from meat if we don't give any
thought to why we might be abstaining from meat. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So why do we?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that kind of defeats the purpose.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or maybe not. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You can do this while eating a big beefy steak or a meat pie
or a baked fish dish or a bowl of rice. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's not what we put into our mouths that defile us, it's what
comes out of our mouth. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's what's in our hearts. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wesleyunited.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FishFry_Fish.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wesleyunited.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FishFry_Fish.png" height="320" width="230" /></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-17666827417918184242013-10-08T20:07:00.000+11:002013-10-08T20:07:08.590+11:00Tell them about the dreamJust about everybody has heard of Martin Luther King Jr's 'I have a dream speech'. But not everyone knows that, if it wasn't for Mahalia Jackson saying 'Tell them about the dream, Martin', the most famous parts of that speech may never have happened. While Martin Luther King Jr's speech is known - and rightly so - as one of the greatest speeches of the 20th Century, sometimes it is Mahalia's Jackson's words that I continue to dwell on.<br />
<br />
'Tell them about the dream, Martin.'<br />
<br />
So often our dreams are silenced - either by ourselves or by others. We share our dreams with nobody, convinced that nobody wants to hear them and frightened that if they did they'd laugh. Or we do tell someone and they do laugh. They tell us our dream is impractical, unrealistic, idealistic or just plain stupid. The greater the dream, often, the greater the ridicule.<br />
<br />
Sometimes a dream is silenced so well that it stops having a voice even inside our own minds. And a dream that isn't speaking to anyone ceases to be a dream at all.<br />
<br />
Does it matter? Maybe our dreams are impractical, unrealistic and idealistic. Maybe we're better off forgetting about them.<br />
<br />
But it's the impractical, unrealistic and idealistic dreams we have to listen to. It's the impractical, unrealistic and idealistic dreams that have the power to change the world.<br />
<br />
When you listen to Martin Luther King Jr's 'I have a dream' speech, it's obvious that he dreamed big. His dream wasn't something he realistically expected to happen in his lifetime. He didn't have a step-by-step process of how to get there. It was 'I have a dream' not I have an achievable goal'. But he still dreamed - and still he told others of his dream. And while not all of his dream has come to fruition even now, I think it's fair to say that his dream helped change the world.<br />
<br />
Jesus spoke a lot about the Kingdom of God. And for the people listening to him, it must have seemed at times like an impractical, unrealistic, idealistic dream.<br />
<br />
And maybe it was a dream. But if it was a dream, then it was God's dream. And it continues to be God's dream. And God doesn't dream achievable goals. God dreams big.<br />
<br />
And I'm glad he does. Who wants to follow a God that has a plan for the world that doesn't aim too high? What's the point of hoping for the Kingdom of God, if it just involves hoping for things that we can realistically expect to see?<br />
<br />
We have a big God and he has big plans. Plans that seem not only impractical, unrealistic and idealistic - but plans that often seem impossible. But because it's God, the impractical, the unrealistic, the idealistic dream he has is not just going to happen, but it's happening now.<br />
<br />
And as Christians we are invited to enter into that dream - to imagine it with God and to participate in the ways it is already coming true.<br />
<br />
And maybe our impractical, unrealistic and idealistic dreams are actually pointing us towards God's dream. Maybe the reason they seem so unachievable is because they're part of God's dream - and God dreams big.<br />
<br />
So maybe it's time we stopped silencing our dreams. Maybe it's time we gave our dreams a voice. So if you do have a dream, don't hide it away, tell them about it! Because in listening to our dreams, we may just be listening to God. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-15033773327574526962013-10-04T17:34:00.000+10:002013-10-04T17:34:47.220+10:00Every Asylum Seeker has a name<div class="MsoNormal">
What do you think of the term 'boat people'? Note I didn't
ask what you think of refugees, but the term itself. When you see or hear the
term 'boat people', what immediately comes to mind?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For me, it's boats. Makes sense really. That's the first
word. People, used almost as an afterthought. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So I think of boats - not people, not faces, not names and
not stories. Boats. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don't stop with boats. The people, the faces, the names
and the stories follow afterwards. But my guess is I'm not the only person whose
initial thought when faced with the term 'boat people' is boats. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I don't think that's an accident.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Guy Sebastian song, 'Get Along' contains the lyrics,
'And it's easy when they're faceless, to hate the other side.' </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's not only easy to hate people when they're faceless,
it's harder to show compassion. We humans may not seem like it at times, but we
really do care about other humans - that is when we see their faces, learn
their names and hear their stories. Some may show more empathy than others. But
the person who can look into someone's eyes and hear their story of suffering
or pain or loss and not be moved in any way is rare. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But if we generally care about individuals we're not so good
about caring about strangers - particularly groups of strangers - whose names
we don't know, whose faces we haven't seen and whose stories we haven't heard. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's like the natural inclination to care about other humans
stops - perhaps because in some way we stop seeing them as humans - or at least
as humans the same as us. We've been doing it for hundreds of years. We say
they're not like us - not civilised like us or not Christian like us or not
intelligent like us or not feeling like us. We turn them into groups with
labels, rather than seeing them as individuals. We refuse to hear their
stories. We refuse to learn their names. We refuse to look into their faces. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the more removed we are from those names and those faces
and those stories, the easier it is not to care. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So how much easier is it to turn away from the plight of
refugees when we see 'boats' rather than people? A boat is a thing, a mode of
transport, a problem, a threat. A boat deserves no compassion, no empathy. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those boats are filled with people - but it's so hard to
care about those people when their names and their faces and their stories
remain hidden from us.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Gosford Anglican Church has had some very good signs up
recently. But this one I think is my favourite:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOy6muQuRIRBcE70FYpLcH6YXvE7qdRfpaySmC24erIoMGhcwZc1K7OCg5wVFBQniboT9lAzeSXl8TNedZsXqk0tejzSd4VkCflqV39RJmL5ZiIaK30h7-GxUcC0lfKF2dyUq-YjGCtk9M/s1600/every+asylum+seeker+has+a+name.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOy6muQuRIRBcE70FYpLcH6YXvE7qdRfpaySmC24erIoMGhcwZc1K7OCg5wVFBQniboT9lAzeSXl8TNedZsXqk0tejzSd4VkCflqV39RJmL5ZiIaK30h7-GxUcC0lfKF2dyUq-YjGCtk9M/s320/every+asylum+seeker+has+a+name.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every Asylum Seeker has a name.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We may not ever learn their names. We may bundle them
altogether in one group called 'boat people' and replace images of their faces
with images of boats in our head. But their names don't disappear just because
we give them a number and turn them into a statistic. Their faces don't become
blurry just because we label them 'boat people'. And their stories aren't
erased just because we haven't heard them. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And chances are - human nature being what it is - if we
learnt their names and saw their faces and heard their stories, we would care.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So let's care anyway - as if we had learnt their names and
seen their faces and heard those stories. Because those names and those faces
and those stories still exist - even if we do try and hide them behind the term
'boat people'. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-60469093775974844222013-09-08T09:10:00.002+10:002013-09-08T09:10:47.825+10:00Now is the time to fight for justice and compassion<div class="MsoNormal">
So <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
now has a more selfish government. That's not just my opinion. That's the
opinion I've seen stated in any number of articles, posts and tweets. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And it seems that this was the Australia Tony Abbott and the
Liberal National Party were trying to get people to vote for. Their
pre-election material focused a lot on jobs, the economy and roads and not at
all on helping the disadvantaged or the marginalised. There was a lot of
emphasis on growth and the economy and not much on justice and compassion.
Their pre-election promises including cutting foreign aid, stopping the boats
and ending the carbon tax.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a recent article for the <i>Guardian</i>, George Monbiot said "<span style="background: white;">Abbott’s
policies are really about removing the social and environmental protections
enjoyed by all Australians, to allow the filthy rich to become richer – and
filthier." </span> (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/abbott-climate-change-election" target="_blank">If Abbott is elected, Australia'snatural wonders will gradually be rubbed away</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Is this the <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
we want? Well according to the election results, yet it is. Or at least it's
the <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
that some of us voted for. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But not everybody is happy with it. Since Saturday night, my
Twitter and Facebook feeds have been filled with comments from people who are
disappointed with the result. Not all of us wanted a more selfish <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> after
all.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what do we do now? Vent on social media, throw up our
hands and start counting down to the next election? Decide that the fight for
justice and compassion is over for another three years?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now is the time that those of us who don't want a more
selfish <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
need to fight even harder for justice and compassion. If we are to live in a
more selfish <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>,
those of us who want something different need to ensure our voices are heard.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We do need to accept the result. But we don't need to just
lie back and accept the fallout. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hope that the many people who voiced disgust at the result
on social media also tell the newly elected government what they think. I hope
they write letters to their MPs telling them what they want <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> to
look like. I hope they protest against every decision the LNP Government makes
that they don't like. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As Martin Luther King Jr said, 'Our lives begin to end the
day we become silent about things that matter.' </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So let's make sure we're not silent.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But our fight for justice and compassion shouldn't end
there. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The commentators who have said <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> under a LNP-led
government would be more selfish have got it wrong in one respect - it's the
government that will be more selfish, not necessarily the country. And the
country is filled with many people who don't have to be selfish just because
our government's policies are.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Justice and compassion should never be relegated to the
governmental sphere, regardless of who's leading the country. It should start
in our own lives.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So now, more than ever, let us be the ones to show kindness
and compassion to others. Let us to be the ones to help our neighbours in need, wherever in this world they may live. Let us be the ones to look after this earth and do all we can to protect it. Let us be the one to treat all people, regardless of
country of birth or religion or sexual orientation or socio-economic status,
equally and justly. Let us be the ones to help the oppressed and the
marginalised and the disadvantaged. Let us be the ones to let our own lives
reflect the kind of country we wish we had. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-63037617456537440622013-09-03T21:33:00.000+10:002013-09-03T21:33:08.195+10:00Why I'm a Christian and support marriage equality<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">In the wake of Kevin Rudd's response to a pastor about same-sex marriage on Q and A last night, I wanted to say something (and warning, this is a very long soap-box type post).</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">I too have sometimes had people say to me that I can't be a Christian and support same-sex marriage. Well I support marriage equality because of my faith, not despite it.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">I believe in marriage equality because I know that we ignore lots of things in the bible while saying that the verses about homosexuality can't be ignored. (I for one would prefer us to focus on the laws about women separating themselves from everyone during their periods - or the laws about the Year of Jubilee where all debts were repaid. Let's worry about them, instead of the verses about homosexuality which actually cause people a lot of pain). </span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><br /><br />I believe in marriage equality because I know that the bible was written in a specific time and was influenced by the culture of its day - and in a new context and a new culture (and with new scientific knowledge about sexual orientation which the bible-writers did not have at the time) we need to rethink things.<br /><br />I believe in marriage equality because I believe that our understanding of God is not static, but changes and evolves over time. Just as we changed our understanding of slavery, so too I believe it's now time to change our understanding of homosexuality.<br /><br />I believe in marriage equality because I believe the 300 plus verses about justice are more important than the few about homosexuality.<br /><br />I believe in marriage equality because I believe God created everyone and loves them just the way they are.<br /><br />And like Kevin Rudd, I believe the central message of the Gospels is love. The church's views on homosexuality has caused so much pain and hurt over the years. I can't believe that this is what the God of love would want.<br /><br />You may disagree with me. But don't say I'm not a Christian or I need to read my bible. I am and I do - and I still believe it's time for marriage equality.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-27806190861409665142013-08-20T13:07:00.001+10:002013-08-20T13:07:43.555+10:00Why I'm not a big fan of economic growth<div class="ennote">
People sometimes tease me for not thinking the economy is
important. It's not that I think it's unimportant. But I do think we place too
much emphasis on it. And I think often decisions are made as if economic growth
was the most important aim, when there are other things that are far more
important. We've prioritised the economy over well-being, when it should be the
other way around.
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's take two policy decisions by the Labor Government recently.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first is the decision to take all single parents off Parenting Payment
when their youngest child turns eight and place them on Newstart instead.
Newstart is not enough to live on - so it forces these parents into any work
they can find - and their choices are limited because of their child-caring
responsibilities. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From an economic perspective, this makes sense. On one hand, you can hand
out money to parents to stay at home. On the other hand, you force people into
working so they're not only contributing to the economy with their labour, but
also through paying for child are and more consumer spending.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, is the economy really the most important thing here? Shouldn't the
most important thing be the health and well-being of our children. I was lucky
enough to be able to work from home until just recently, when my youngest was
11. And while we may not have had much money, what we did have was way more
precious - time together. I'm not saying all parents should stay at home until
their children finish primary school. But I do believe those that want to should
be encouraged. No, they don't contribute as much to the economy, but they
contribute an awful lot to the well-being of their children and often the wider
community. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The next area is refugees. I received something in my mailbox the other day
about how much illegal boats are costing us. We've reduced real people who are
hurting and suffering to a dollar figure. If the economy is the most important
thing, then maybe this makes sense. But it's a sad world we live in, if that's
the thing that matters most.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Compassion is never cheap. In dollar terms, what we spend when we're
compassionate will often exceed what we receive. But in well-being terms, what
we receive is priceless. Being compassionate does have benefits - not only to
those who are helped, but to those who are helping. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And if we remove the economic focus, let's look at what refugees bring to
Australia. Not only do they bring the opportunity for us to show compassion,
they bring their lives, their culture and their stories. They bring the
opportunity to enrich the lives of all those who come into contact with them.
Surely that's worth something!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The other problem I have with economic growth is that it can suggest that
it is only economic transactions that are important. Health, love, enjoyment,
nature - all are seen in dollar terms. Instead of weddings being seen as a
chance to celebrate love and begin a life together, they're huge events that
require lots of consumer spending. Weight management, match-making and
Eco-tourism are huge industries. A hug, a giggle, a walk in our local
neighbourhood don't contribute to economic growth. But if someone can find a way
to make money out of them, they will. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And does consumer spending really equal happiness? How much of what we buy
is actually making our lives better? And often our buying is a reflection of
things that are wrong, not how happy we are. Yesterday I spent money on a pillow
for my sore neck and medication. Yes, they contributed to my well-being - but
I'd say the conversation I had with my sons in the evening probably had more to
say about my general well-being that my consumer spending did.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The economy is important. We need money to provide the basic services that
people need. And there's nothing wrong with wanting Australians to have good
lifestyles beyond those basic services. But growing the economy shouldn't be the
ultimate goal. Improving the well-being of people should. The economy is just a
tool to help us do that. When people's well-being suffers because it's not good
for the economy, then something is wrong.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-3957359058611969302013-02-19T11:49:00.000+11:002013-02-19T11:49:43.640+11:00Sex outside marriage: is it okay?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my old church, sex outside marriage was seen as a sin.
That doesn't mean that people didn't do it. But people were expected to wait
until marriage before having sex and not have sex unless they were married.
Anything else was wrong. They considered this the 'biblical' view and therefore
God's view. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's also been the traditional view. Throughout history,
Christians have generally considered sex outside marriage as a sin. However, it
was a sin that lots of people were prepared to commit. And generally, people
didn't seem to worried about it. Popes have been known to not only have
mistresses, but illegitimate children. Men were often actually encouraged to
sow their wild oats and even after marriage a mistress on the side was
perfectly acceptable - often even expected. So sex outside marriage wasn't
considered that big of a deal.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unless of course you were a woman. Then the rules were
completely different. Women were expected to be a virgin on their wedding day
and never to take a lover. Obviously some still did. But women's 'fornication'
or 'adultery' was seen as a much graver matter than men's 'fornication' or
'adultery'. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Biblical interpretation doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum.
And in every time and age people are most likely to interpret the bible in a
way that fits well with their cultural ideas. It is quite possible that one
reason why sex outside marriage has been seen as a sin for so long is because
it kept women from having sex outside marriage. And it was in men's best
interests for women to be virgins on their wedding day and remain monogamous. And
it suited their culturally formed ideas about what women were meant to be like.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The bible does not exist in a cultural vacuum either. So to
understand the bible's teachings on sex outside marriage, we need to understand
the culture it was written in. Women had far less status in society than they
do today. They had little rights on their own and were often considered to be
man's possession. Therefore, to have sex with a woman outside of marriage was
to despoil another man's property (either her father's, her future husband's or
her husband's). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In <st1:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">1 Corinthians 7:2</st1:bcv_smarttag_15>,
Paul says that men should have sex with their own wife and wives should have
sex with their own husband. That seems very plain. However, this is also the
chapter where Paul says it is better for the married to stay unmarried. If we
had heeded this advice, we probably wouldn't have the population problem we
have now. And admittedly, Paul does not say they cannot marry. Indeed, he says
it is better to marry than to burn with passion. However, it doesn't seem like
good long-term advice. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And we are given some reason for that advice later on in the
chapter. Paul says it is 'because of the present crisis' that it is better for
people to remain unmarried. And in <st1:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">1 Corinthians
7:29</st1:bcv_smarttag_15>, he says the time is short. This was a time when
people were expecting the Lord's return any day. They were not making plans for
2000 years of Christianity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is not to say that sex outside marriage was only bad in
Paul's time. However, it is worth noting that we now (with the exception of
religious orders in the Catholic Church) have disregarded most of what Paul had
to say about remaining unmarried. Can we really still hold fast to its advice
about sex outside marriage?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I mentioned before that women's status has changed since
biblical times. Indeed, women's inferior status was a constant throughout much
of Christianity's history. So too were their lives. It has only been in
relatively recent times that a woman's life has consisted of far more than
marrying early and spending her life bearing children. In the past, women had
little chance to earn money or support themselves. They were totally dependent
on their husband. They also had far fewer ways of preventing pregnancy and were
greatly disadvantaged if an unwanted pregnancy occurred. In such a context,
refraining from having sex outside marriage was a very good idea. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But things have changed. Women now not only can earn money
but often want to put children on hold for a while as they pursue a career. And
with the invention of the pill, they're able to do that and still enjoy a
healthy sex life. In the past, if a woman was not married by the age of 20, she
might be seen as a spinster. Now, it's quite common for women to wait until
they're 30 before getting married. It's also quite common for women to go
travelling or pursue other interests in their 20s. Women are doing a lot more
than they used to. And marriage and children are getting delayed. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I personally think that can be a good thing. I had my
first child while I was 24. And while that's not as young as some other people
I know, it did mean I didn't get the chance to travel or pursue a career or
even have the same kind of social life that other people in their 20s often
get. Not that I regret it, of course. And there are lots of benefits to having
children young. But I can also see the benefits of waiting until you're
older. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So should sex have to wait until someone's 30? Different
people will have different answers to that. But whatever the answer is, we have
to recognise that waiting until you're 30 to have sex is completely different
to waiting until you're 15! </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But this does not mean we should just dismiss any biblical
teachings about sex as culturally irrelevant. If the bible says something, it's
worth asking questions about why it says it. Is it just because those teachings
met cultural expectations? Or is there a deeper reason?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think one thing the bible constantly says about sex is
that it is a special act. It binds you to another person - not just physically,
but emotionally. While I do not think this necessarily means we have to wait
until we're married to have sex, we do need to carefully consider who we have
sex with. And we need to be aware that it a special act and that it does have
emotional consequences. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Society's expectation nowadays is often the complete
opposite to what the traditional and biblical view on sex before marriage was.
Now, we're told we can have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want. It
doesn't matter. It's not important. It's just two consenting adults having fun.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet this view of sex can damage people - particularly
women, who are far more likely to make an emotional investment in the act of
sex. Since the sexual revolution, how many women have had sex with a man
thinking he likes her only to find out he just wanted sex? My guess is
millions. How many women find themselves having sex when they're don't really
want to, just because they feel it's expected of them? Just because society
tells us it's okay to have sex now doesn't mean it won't cause us pain. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A few writers have made the comment that, while the sexual
revolution was meant to bring women a whole more freedom in the area of sex, all
it really ended up doing was make women more sexually available for men. Men often
benefited just as much as women - maybe even more so.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And while women's status has improved, the sexual revolution
might be said to have actually diminished women's status, rather than improved
it. Women are now much more likely to be seen as sexual objects and expected to
be sexually available. And sexual objectification is just another way of
seeking to possess someone. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I'm not saying that people should never have one-night
stands. Nor am I saying that women shouldn't want to be sexy. We are sexual
beings. And that's okay. It seems to me that God made us like that. Maybe we
should acknowledge that, rather than trying to ignore it. However, it's because
we're sexual beings that sex is important, and I think we need to acknowledge
that too. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can't take the bible's teaching on sex and transplant
them to our own culture as though nothing has changed. It has. But nor can we
dismiss them as culturally irrelevant. They still have something to teach us.
And in the end, what people do with those teachings is really a matter between
them and God. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-9706280779963600122013-02-10T14:21:00.000+11:002013-02-10T14:26:13.194+11:00Life without germs is not much of a life<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/germs.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.gottabemobile.com/wp-content/uploads/germs.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Last week in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
came the news that the government had created stricter hygiene and sanitary
regulations for childcare centres. These new standards included children not
being allowed to blow out candles on a communal birthday cake and having to use
hand-sanitiser before and after playing in the sandpit. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Later on came the news that a study by <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Stanford</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>
revealed that actually exposing children to some germs may be good for them, as
it builds up their immune system. Out of all the mothers I have spoken to about
it, not one was shocked by this news. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So why do we have such stringent requirements when it comes
to sanitation and hygiene? And what is that doing to us? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The emphasis on germs really began in the post-war period.
This was a period when women were forced back into the home after doing work
during the war. It was also a period when a new wave of household appliances
supposedly freed up house-wives' time. It was also a time when consumerism
really took off. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having more stricter cleanliness requirements not only meant
that women were kept busier, but that there was a ready market for more
products particularly aimed at house-wives. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Things have changed a bit since that time, but I can't kept
thinking that at least some of our ideas about cleanliness, hygiene and
sanitation come from the very companies that are trying to sell us products. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We've all seen the ads where a women cleans the bathroom,
but (shock, horror) doesn't get all the germs. No, if she wants the germs, she
has to buy this particular brand of product that is guaranteed to pick up germs
that the other products leave behind. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I remember when I was a new mother, receiving a free
magazine and pack. The pack contained lots of samples of things I might need
for my new baby. The magazine was filled with ads for more products. And
looking back, I would say that many of those ads really capitalise on the fears
that a new mother has. Many a new mother would have looked at those ads and
thought they immediately needed to go out and buy a million and one things just
to keep their baby safe, healthy and free from germs. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And this is probably a good time to say that an emphasis on
hygiene and safety can be a good thing. The discovery that it was important to
wash hands in hospital actually saved lives. And I for one am pleased that
someone created products to keep cupboards locked so that little fingers (and
mouths) could not get into them. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But have we gone too far? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The rules about birthday cakes are only for childcare centres.
Parents can still choose to have a communal birthday cake at their own party if
they wish. And I'm sure that many parents will. But will some parents see these
new laws and suddenly worry that their child should not eat any cake where
another child has blowed out the candles. I can all too easily imagine a
scenario where little Tommy has a birthday party and little Jane's mother says
Jane can't have any birthday cake if Tommy blows out the candles - spoiling the
moment for both Tommy and Jane.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Birthdays are special, magical, joyful times for children.
And one of the best things about birthdays (besides the presents, of course) is
blowing out the candles. Children have been doing it for years. And I don't
think we've suffered too much for it. And if any of us did catch someone else's
cold, it's a small price to pay for sharing this moment together. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that's one thing about strict sanitary regulations. It
keeps people apart. Yes, when we share things, we may share germs. But we also
share special moments. We are together as a family, a group or a community. The
occasional cold is a small price to pay for that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some churches have now stopped allowing parishioners to
share from the same cup during communion. Again, this is an attempt to stop the
spreading of germs. And while I can see times when this might be a good
practice (for example, when deadly viruses are widespread), it kind of ruins
the meaning of sharing communion. In communion, we all come together. We
partake in the one bread and the one wine. We share in the one faith. That's
symbolic and it's special. And yes, we can still have that drinking from
separate communion glasses. But something is lost if we do. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At some point we need to ask ourselves if the price we're
paying to keep ourselves free from germs is actually worth what we are losing. And
part of what we are losing is our sense of belonging to the one community. We
focus on the individual rather than the shared sense of being together. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We are not only isolating ourselves from each other. We are
isolating ourselves from nature. The hand-sanitising before and after sandpit
use is an example of how we wish to protect ourselves from dirt (and often
nature). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nature can make us dirty. Nature can expose us to germs.
Nature can make us cold and wet and lower our immune system. Nature can bite
and sting and hurt us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what do we do in our super-safe, super-sanitised (and
super-comfortable) world we have created? It's telling that many eco-holidays
are now held in very clean, very comfortable and very safe resort type
settings. People get to experience nature without being exposed to any of the
risk. But it kind of seems that that super-safe, super-sanitised and
super-comfortable experience of nature is missing at least some of what nature has
to offer. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And what about the backyard? Or the park? Or general
everyday places where kids get to experience nature? Do we keep our kids far
from any of that because they might get hurt or they might catch germs? I
personally think that a childhood where we don't experience nature is far worse
than a childhood where we might get sick or get stung now and then. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My son got stung by a bee just recently. I asked him whether
he thought it would have been better to not play outside, because therefore he
wouldn't have got stung by a bee. His answer was no. When asked why he said,
'Because then I wouldn't get any exercise or any sun and I wouldn't have fun.'
When I said, 'What if you knew you would get stung by a bee again if you played
outside, would you still play outside?' His answer, 'yes' and he didn't really
need to think about it too much. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/European_honey_bee_extracts_nectar.jpg/759px-European_honey_bee_extracts_nectar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/European_honey_bee_extracts_nectar.jpg/759px-European_honey_bee_extracts_nectar.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There's one way to keep children safe. Keep them isolated in
sterilised rooms, with nothing dangerous and no contact with anyone or barely
anything. But that's not living. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We're not meant to live highly sterilised, highly safe,
highly comfortable lives. Whether we like it or not, we are connected to each
other and we are connected to nature. And that involves some risk. But the risk
is worth it. Because a life that's connected to other people and connected to
nature also contains much joy. And anyone who has experience that joy would say
that it was worth the risk to get it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-33006474693549518902013-01-22T13:54:00.000+11:002013-01-22T13:54:26.911+11:00Accepting women's nakedness - Eve and the Garden of Eden<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Eve was naked in the Garden of Eden.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We're used to those pictures where Adam and Eve have
appropriately placed fig leaves. But until they ate from the forbidden fruit,
Adam and Eve would not have been wearing them. They would have been well and
truly naked.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And not naked, in a 'provocative, over-sexualised, look at
me and ogle me' way. Naked in a 'this is who I am, exactly as God intended'
way. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, it wasn't too long until they ate from the
forbidden fruit. It was only after this that they tried to cover themselves
with fig leaves. It was also after this, that they were removed from the garden
and God made them coverings of animal skins. Remember, that Adam and Eve had
already tried to cover themselves. And remember that God was quite happy for
them to be naked before they ate the forbidden fruit. When God provided animal
skins, I don't believe he was saying that they shouldn't be naked.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I should quickly clarify that I'm not about to suggest we
all start stripping off our clothes. What I am suggesting is that maybe we need
to get a lot more comfortable with women's nakedness - not in the sense of
wearing no clothes, but of accepting all aspects of a woman's body.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine for a moment that they didn't eat the forbidden
fruit, that Eve remained in the Garden of Eden in her naked state.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She would have gotten her periods, had babies, breastfed.
She may have even talked about her vagina! I imagine during the birth of her
babies, it may have come up in conversation. She would have grown old. Her tummy
would not have been so flat anymore. Her breasts would not have been so perky.
She would have gotten wrinkles and grey hairs. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I kind of think Adam and God would have been cool with
that. In fact, I kind of think that if Adam had even thought of complaining,
God would have been very quick to tell him, I made her that way. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is no airbrushed, photoshopped version of Eve's
nakedness. It's real nakedness. It's nakedness where nothing about a woman has
to be hidden away. It's a nakedness where a woman's natural ageing processes
and natural nurturing functions are on view and accepted. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We're a long way from the Garden of Eden. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Last year, a <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>
politician was banned from addressing the Michigan House of Representatives
after using the word 'vagina'. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Last week, a woman was told to stop breastfeeding her baby
at a public pool. <st1:city w:st="on">Sunrise</st1:city>
host, David Koch, said women should be 'discreet' and 'classy' when
breastfeeding in public.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yesterday, Mama Mia gave a thumbs-up to Nigella Lawson for
refusing to allow her tummy to be photoshopped out. (<a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/nigella-lawson-and-a-big-photoshop-win/">http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/nigella-lawson-and-a-big-photoshop-win/</a>).
What's sad about this is the fact that they even want to photoshop tummies
out. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Adam_and_eve_by_BARTOLOZZI,_FRANCESCO_-_GMII.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Adam_and_eve_by_BARTOLOZZI,_FRANCESCO_-_GMII.jpg" width="320" /></a>But then someone refusing to be photoshopped is news. The
large amount of photoshopping that goes on every day (removing wrinkles,
tummies and anything else considered unattractive) is not. It's too common to
rate a mention. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We live in a world where there's quite a large amount of
women's flesh on show. But it's not real women's flesh. It's not
wormen-affirming flesh. It's flesh where all the faults have been removed. It's
flesh that is well-presented and 'perfected'. It's flesh that's there to be
looked at. (And I use the word 'flesh' intentionally here, because that's what
it seems like - that women are just flesh.) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And if we dare to show women's bodies in a way that shows
they're not flesh, that they actually are designed for something so much more
important than being looked at, we are told to do it in a way that's classy and
discreet - presumably not to offend anyone who might be 'looking' at us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I suspect that Adam liked looking at Eve's body. And I
suspect God did too. But it was an appreciation borne out of seeing Eve as she
really was, and understanding her as a person and not just something to be
ogled. It was an appreciation that could accept Eve in her true naked form. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can't return to the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Garden</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Eve</st1:placename></st1:place>.
But may we all learn to accept women's nakedness a little bit more - without
necessarily taking off any clothes <span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span> </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-53818679548177733082013-01-19T20:33:00.000+11:002013-01-19T20:33:17.856+11:00Religious sensitivities and anti-discrimination laws<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
A new bill by the Australian Labor Party will give religious
organisations in <st2:place w:st="on">Australia</st2:place>
the right to discriminate against those who might cause "injury to the
religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It seems that the press wanted to present this in as
controversial a way as possible, with many news outlets reporting that
religious organisations were free to discriminate against those they considered
'sinners', which is not the actual wording used - and makes no sense at all in
a Christian context, as we are all sinners.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, one might well ask what does "injury to the
religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion" actually mean? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am a Christian. And I can think of no person whose
employment would cause injury to my religious sensitivities. As a Christian,
though, who believes God's love and compassion extends to all people, I do feel
my religious sensitivities may be injured should someone be refused employment
on the basis of sexuality, gender, marital status or religion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The same stories that used the word 'sinners' also said:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"Under current exemptions to legislation, religious
groups can reject employees for being gay, single parents or living "in
sin"." (Read more: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/sinner-story-a-beat-up-christian-lobby/story-e6frfku9-1226554925167#ixzz2IPSaHuB6"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/sinner-story-a-beat-up-christian-lobby/story-e6frfku9-1226554925167#ixzz2IPSaHuB6</span></a>)<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So are these the type of people who would injure 'religious
sensitivities'? I would say no. But at the same time, I fear that it is these
kinds of people that will be discriminated against.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby explains it
differently. He says it's not a matter of vetting people, but of employing
people who share the same beliefs. He gives the example that an environmental
organisation would not employ someone who was an 'ardent logger'.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The difference is, of course, that environmental
organisations (quite rightly) <i>are</i>
subject to discrimination laws. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And however it's painted, in practice, I fear it's going to
be used mainly as an excuse refuse employment to homosexuals. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And quite frankly I don't think that's right and I don't
think that's Christian. For a start, why is that many (certainly not all, but
many) Christian churches focus on this one group of people? They'll employ just
about anybody and accept just about anybody - except for homosexuals. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have heard many Christians say that a person cannot be a
Christian and a homosexual. Why not? Even if they do believe it's a sin -
there's lots of sins mentioned in the bible. I think it's safe to say that
we're all guilty of at least one of them - and I include in there the sins
mentioned as abominations. Lying is an abomination. Women wearing men's
clothing is an abomination. There's lots of them. (For a full list of them all,
go here: <a href="http://richardwaynegarganta.com/abomination.htm">http://richardwaynegarganta.com/abomination.htm</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I'm pretty sure that there aren't too many people who are
being refused employment by a Christian organisation for cheating or lying or
oppressing the poor. We're perfectly willing to employ those people. But
homosexuals, no, can't be done. That would offend our religious sensitivities. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I do understand that some Christian organisations (such
as schools) want to employ people who share those Christian beliefs. That does
make sense. But if it ends up getting used mostly as an excuse to
discrimination against people, then that's not right. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We believe in a God who has created us all and loves us all.
We have the example of the Good Samaritan to show that even the people we
detest may end up being the ones who do a lot better job of loving their
neighbour than the 'right' people do. We have what might be considered an
anti-discrimination verse in <st1:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Galatians 3:28</st1:bcv_smarttag_15>:
' There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,nor is there male
and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We also have a lot of bible verses and passages that tell us
not to be judgmental, <st1:bcv_smarttag_15 w:st="on">Matthew 7:1-5</st1:bcv_smarttag_15>
being just one of them:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“Do not judge, or you
too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be
judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“Why do you look at
the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in
your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out
of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite,
first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother’s eye.</i>"</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Christians should be the people who accept others, the
people who love others, the people who are least likely to judge others. We
should be the least likely to discriminate, not the legal exception to
anti-discrimination laws. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do realise that the press has probably not done the best
job in reporting this story. Controversial stories sell more papers - I should
know, I bought one myself when I saw the front page of <i>The Canberra Times</i>. And I also realise that there are many
religious organisations who do not discriminate based on age, gender,
sexuality, race or religion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, I also wonder how the average Australian sees the
church at this time. Do they see a church that is accepting and welcoming, that
represents a God that loves them? Or do they see a church that wants to exclude
people and that dislikes certain groups of people? And which one really is more
representative of the God who created everyone, who loves everyone and his son,
Jesus Christ, who died for everyone? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further reading: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/shutting-out-the-sinners-feeds-bigotry-20130117-2cw0w.html">Shutting
out the 'sinners' feeds bigotry</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.smh.com.au/2013/01/15/3955388/art-353-golding-2-300x0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.smh.com.au/2013/01/15/3955388/art-353-golding-2-300x0.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Picture taken from "Religious groups free to discriminate" on www.smh.com.au - http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/religious-groups-free-to-discriminate-20130115-2crlw.html)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-80878432398014268712013-01-14T13:12:00.000+11:002013-01-14T13:12:00.280+11:00Praise and persecution<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">On Palm
Sunday, Jesus rode into <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city>
on a donkey, as a large group of people praised him. Just one week later, in
the same town, a large group of people were calling for his crucifixion. Quite
possibly, many of the people in the original group were there in the latter
group as well. Just one week and everything changed. What happened? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I think what
happened is that those people who were praising Jesus as he rode in a donkey
were not only praising Jesus, they were praising what they expected him to be.
They thought he was going to get rid of the Romans. They thought that he was
going to gain Jewish independence. They had plans for the Messiah and thought
Jesus was probably a pretty good fit for those plans. They thought that with
the Messiah on their side, the Romans didn’t stand a chance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I imagine
quite a few people would have been shocked to hear that Jesus had been
arrested. But perhaps they were still kind of okay with it. I mean, Jesus
wasn’t following their plan exactly the way they had decided he should, but
they could handle a few slight detours along the way. Maybe he was planning to
use his arrest to overthrow the Romans and put the Jews in charge again? But he
didn’t. Instead, he meekly submitted to their authority. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">When Pontius
Pilate said he would release one of the prisoners, I’m pretty sure that by then
they realised that Jesus wasn’t going to follow the agenda at all. They would
have known (or thought they knew) that any real Messiah wasn’t going to gain
his release by the Romans agreeing to let him go. That’s not part of the plan.
No way. So perhaps right about then they decided that because this Jesus guy
wasn’t following the agenda, that he wasn’t really the Messiah at all. I mean
the real Messiah would do what they wanted him to do, right? So what to do with
Jesus, this guy who ‘pretended’ to be the Messiah, but failed to follow their
rules? May as well crucify him. He probably deserves it for giving everyone the
wrong idea. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But Jesus was
the Messiah. Just because he didn’t do things the way people expected him to
didn’t mean he wasn’t the right guy. He just did things his way (and God’s way)
rather than their way. He wasn’t out to meet anybody’s agenda. He had his own
agenda to take care of. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sometimes I
think we do the same thing now. We have our own ideas about what God should do
and when he should do it. We expect God to follow our agenda. But God doesn’t
always go along with our plans. He has his own plans. And sometimes perhaps we
may wonder whether God’s actually in something at all. I mean if it doesn’t go
the way we expect it to, maybe God’s not really in it, right? But just because
things don’t go the way we want, doesn’t mean that God’s not there. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">There’s a quote
from Abraham Lincoln that I absolutely love. It goes like this: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;">“Sir, my
concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on
God's side, for God is always right” The reason I love that quote so much is
because it draws our attention to the fact that we shouldn’t be making our
plans and expect God to go along with them. We should instead be making sure
we’re following God’s plans. It also reminds us that just because we decide to
do something and call on God to help us doesn’t necessary mean that God is on
our side. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;">We can’t decide to go to war and expect God to sign up
as a valuable recruit. Instead, we
should be looking to sign up as recruits in his army. We need to fight against
the things that he tell us to fight against, like poverty. We need to fight for
the people that he tells us to fight for, like the weak and the marginalised.
We need to try and work towards God’s plans succeeding, rather than making our
own plans and expecting God to help us achieve them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-no-proof: yes;">Palm Sunday is coming up in a couple of days. It’s
generally a time for remembering the praise that people gave Jesus as he rode
in on his donkey. But perhaps it should also be a time for thinking about
whether we’re following Jesus as he really is, or Jesus as we want him to be. Are
we making sure we’re on God’s side? Or are we making plans and just expecting
God to be on our side? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-61137741921024258192013-01-07T13:11:00.000+11:002013-01-07T13:11:00.331+11:00The good news of the Gospel<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Gospel
literally means ‘good news’. When people talk about the gospel or the Christian
message, they are meant to be talking about good news. It’s the kind of thing
that people are meant to be happy to hear, the kind of message they should get
excited about. When people are told about Christianity, it should feel like
getting the news that you’ve got a promotion or you’ve won the lotto or someone
has paid for you to go on a European holiday. So why is it that when people
hear about Christianity, they often feel like they’ve just been told that they’re
going to jail. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now the
argument could be made that the Christian message is only good news to
Christians. There are two responses I’d like to make to that. Firstly, not all
Christians hear the Christian message as good news. They might have started off
that way, but what at first made them feel like they were at a wedding now
makes them feel like they’re at a court hearing. A lot of this depends on
whether the church is heavy on the guilt or heavy on the grace. Or even if they
understand and believe in the good news message of Jesus, what they hear from
the pulpit may seem like the complete opposite at times. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Secondly, shouldn’t
the Christian message at least look like good news – even for those who are not
Christians? In the New Testament, Jesus and Paul preached the gospel. It was
accepted and believed by people who had never heard of Jesus before. They
accepted and believed it because It sounded like good news. If it was bad news,
they wouldn’t have been interested. I believe that the gospel still needs to
sound like good news to everyone today, even to people that aren’t interested
in Christianity. Maybe one of the reasons why so many people are so
antagonistic or disinterested in the church is because they only see it as a
bearer of bad news. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">For example,
the Christian message is often summed up in this way: ‘If you are not a
Christian, you’re going to hell.’ Doesn’t sound like good news to me. In fact,
it sounds as though the ‘good news’ of Jesus has been warped into the ‘bad
news’ of the church. It gets even worse when we consider all the other things
that Christians are prone to saying:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">All other religions except
Christianity are bad<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">You are a sinner and need to
be punished<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">God hates homosexuals and
Muslims and those who have abortions<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If you want to become a
Christian, you need to change (because God doesn’t like the way you are)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Once you’re a Christian,
you’ll need to stop drinking, smoking, swearing, having sex and doing all
the things you typically enjoy doing. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If you don’t accept all the
right doctrines, then you’re really not a Christian at all and you’re
still going to hell. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Christians are better than
all other people. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">You’re just not good enough.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now some of
these may not actually be said, but they’re the kind of messages that people
are getting from Christians. Doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of news that
you break open the champagne and tell all your friends about now, does it? You
could be forgiven for thinking that Christians don’t actually have any good
news to tell.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But the
message of Jesus is a good news message. As a Christian (yes I really am a
Christian) I believe it has good news for everybody. Not just the regular
church-goers and born again Christians, but everybody. And here’s what I think
this good news is:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">God loves you exactly the
way you are.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Even though you’re not
perfect, nobody is, but God accepts us anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">God wants to be in
relationship with us. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">God wants us to live full
and satisfying lives and gives us guidelines for doing this. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If we want him to, God will
help change us into the kind of people we want to be. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Jesus died so that our sins
may be forgiven. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We don’t need to earn our
way into Heaven. We just need to believe the good news. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I am well
aware that this is still not a good news message for all. Some choose not to
believe. Some will reject Christianity no matter how it is presented. But at
least it sounds like good news. And even if people don’t want to accept the
entire message of Jesus, I hope that they can find something worth celebrating
in what is presented here. I believe that our task as Christians is simply to
present the good news. Whether people accept it or reject it is up to them. But
let’s make sure we are presenting the good news of Jesus, not the bad news of
the church. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-30380903347541524222012-12-31T13:08:00.000+11:002012-12-31T13:08:00.363+11:00The sins of Sodom<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Every so often
a preacher will stand up and say that God is punishing us or is about to punish
us in the same way he punished Sodom. And when they talk about ‘Sodom’ in this
way, they don’t even need to say what they think God might punish us for –
everyone knows it’s for homosexual practices. The funny thing is God never said
he punished <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city>
for homosexual practices at all. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Yes, that’s
right. We all presume it’s in there, right. I mean everyone knows that <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place> was punished because
the people in there were homosexuals. But it’s not actually in the bible. What
is in the bible is that men came to Lot’s house in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city> and asked to have sex with the male
visitors (who were angels) that had there. (This was after God had said he
would destroy <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city>,
by the way.) But it doesn’t actually say God destroyed <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place> for this reason. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And so if we
want to rant and rave about Sodom and get people all scared that God is going
to show his wrath in the same way again, we better be very clear about what the
sins of Sodom actually were. I mean if we want to prevent it – which apparently
many preachers and Christians do – then we want to make sure we’re avoiding the
very things that <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place>
did. Right? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I can imagine
people thinking, well if God didn’t actually specify what the sins of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place> were, it was
implicit in the actions committed before it was destroyed. And so it’s obvious
that homosexuality was the cause of God’s wrath. The problem is there is
something better to go on. (And no, I’m not talking about some kind of sociological
study or personal feeling or liberal attitude.) How do we know what the sins of
<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city> were? We
go to the bible. Because the bible actually states quite clearly what they
were. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now the only
thing mentioned in Genesis is the story about men wanting to have sex with the
angels and the fact that there was a huge outcry against <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city>. Also in Jude 1:7 it says that <st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Gomorrah</st1:city></st1:place>
practices sexual perversion and immorality. So I do believe that sexual
immorality (though not specifically homosexuality) was part of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place>’s sins. I say only
part, because Ezekiel 16:49 gives quite a different account of what <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place>’s sins were. It says
‘Now this was the sin of your sister <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place>:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help
the poor and needy.’ <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Whoa! Maybe we
should be scared. Arrogant, overfed, unconcerned (some translations say idle or
lazy) and not helpful to the poor and needy. Sounds like most of the people I
know. Matter of fact, it kind of sounds like me too. Probably sounds like most
of the people in the western world – and I’m including Christians. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I mean if
we’re really serious about avoiding the same fate as <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place> – which it appears many people are –
then we need to take steps to get rid of these things. No more over eating.
Let’s legislate against that. Boycott McDonald’s and Hungry Jacks. Let’s fine
people for being idle or lazy. And let’s put rules in place to ensure every
single person cares about the poor and the needy. Making laws against pride is
going to be hard, but I’m sure we can think of something. Of course, it may
mean that practically everyone ends up on the wrong side of the law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And the next
time we feel tempted to blame a natural disaster on God’s wrath at homosexuals,
perhaps we should take a good long look at our own life. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place> was a case where God showed his anger.
I agree with the preachers on that point. I also believe that he may show his
anger in the same way again. But I don’t think it will be because of homosexual
practices. I think God’s anger is far more likely to be against the very sins
He says <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city></st1:place>
committed: gluttony, pride, unconcern and laziness. Let’s take a look at our
own lives and see if there’s any way we might be incurring the wrath of God,
rather than pointing our fingers at other people. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-31712173551651217982012-12-17T13:06:00.000+11:002012-12-17T13:06:00.135+11:00Wanting things and hurting others<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The more we
want things, the more likely we are to hurt people to get them. That’s pretty
scary for a generation of people that have basically been programmed to want
things from the time they were born. Not only do we have a whole advertising
industry that spends billions of dollars in figuring out exactly how to make us
want things, but our very culture seems designed to promote the view that there
are things we want and we should do everything we can to get them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Even our
churches seem to share this view. We are told that we have desires and that God
wants to give us those desires. It’s suggested that we shouldn’t limit our
dreams, but should make them as big as we can – because God wants to answer our
wildest prayers. I’ve heard it preached that if you’re praying for a mate,
don’t just pray for a mate, but write down a whole heap of attributes you want
that mate to have and watch God give you every single one of them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There’s
nothing wrong with wanting things. It’s a normal and natural part of being a
human. But I do think we take this business of wanting things way too seriously.
The world and the church promotes very heavily this idea that everybody wants
something and everybody can get it. You are almost looked down upon if you say
there’s nothing that you really want. Or even worse, you’re told that not
wanting things is a sign that you don’t really trust God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">You hardly
ever hear the bad points about wanting things – and believe me, there are bad
points. I go back to my first sentence. The more we want things, the more
likely we are to hurt people to get them. People who wouldn’t think about
hurting people in any normal course of events will think nothing about hurting
people if it helps them get something they really want.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">One of the
funniest examples of this is a wedding. Women who would never usually dream of
pushing or hurting other women will push and shove just to get that bouquet –
because they really, really want to get married. Love itself is a good example
of how people hurt others to get what they want. Friends will betray friends.
Spouses will betray spouses. And even just the regular dating ritual of trying
people out, without taking a minute to think about their feelings, is a form of
hurting people in order to get the relationship you want. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">People who
really want to be successful in their career will hurt people on their way to
the top. People who want to be rich will hurt others to achieve the bank
balance they want. Teenagers who want to be popular will hurt the friends who
have been there for them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now this isn’t
always the case. People can want something very badly and yet refuse to hurt
people in order to get it. In fact, a good test of how much moral integrity a
person really has is to place them in a situation where they can get what they
want, but only if they do something wrong or hurt another person. The time when
many of us are most tempting to do the wrong thing is when we want something.
Whether we’re the kind of person who hurts others or not, it’s worthwhile being
very, very careful when it comes to the things we really want. Wanting
something badly can be a great test of our true moral character. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There’s
something else I’d like to add. As mentioned, the church often tells people
they have desires and that God wants to give them those desires. However, God
doesn’t want you to hurt others. If you’re praying for God to give you
something, then don’t hurt someone in order to try and get it. Firstly, I don’t
believe God will answer your prayer in a way that involves you hurting others.
Secondly, I also don’t believe that God wants to bless the very thing that is
making you hurt others. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">So wanting
things is quite okay – although perhaps not as much as the world will have us
believe. But hurting others to get it is not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-79515920173404051352012-12-16T10:14:00.002+11:002012-12-16T10:14:53.155+11:00Mass shootings: Addressing the 'why' and not just the 'how'<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As most people I'm sure are aware by now, on Friday, 28
people were killed by a gunman at <st1:placename w:st="on">Sandy Hook</st1:placename>
<st1:placetype w:st="on">Elementary School</st1:placetype> in <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state>, including 20 children. This is
a tragedy and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. It shouldn't
have happened. And it could have been prevented.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As is to be expected, this latest shooting has revived the
gun-control debate. Many people believe that it's further evidence that the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> needs
tougher gun laws. I agree. If this man did not have a gun, this shooting would
not have happened. And mass shootings like this occur way too frequently in the
<st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>.
They need to do something to stop them. And having stricter gun-control laws is
a first step.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But I think it's important that it is treated only as a
first step. If people have no access to guns, I believe it will prevent
tragedies like the one we've just seen. But if people still would like to go
around killing other people, but just don't have the means to do so, then this
is still a tragedy. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Gun-control addresses the 'how' of mass shootings. And we
need to get that sorted out. But we also need to ask questions about 'why'. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If a child is hitting another person over the head with a
hammer, the first thing you do is take away the hammer. But the second thing
you do is ask questions about why a child would want to hit someone over the
head with a hammer in the first place.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Twenty-eight people being killed in a mass shooting is
undeniably a tragedy. But so is the many people who commit suicide. In <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>, it
is estimated that approximately 259 people aged between 15 and 24 commit
suicide every year (<a href="http://www.kidshelp.com.au/grownups/news-research/hot-topics/suicide.php">http://www.kidshelp.com.au/grownups/news-research/hot-topics/suicide.php</a>).
That's a tragedy too. <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
has tougher gun laws - which were enforced after a mass shooting. But although
we may have prevented (quite rightly) the tragedy of mass shootings, the
tragedy of people who want to take life (even if only their own) remains. In
the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>,
4,212 young people committed suicide in 2005 (<a href="http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html">http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html</a>).
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And even with suicide, I believe we often address the 'why'
and not the 'how'. People are told to be on the lookout for suicidal signs, to
ask people if they are okay and to get help for anyone that seems suicidal. All
of this is good and must be done. But we also need to address the 'why'. We
need to ask why so many people feel suicidal in the first place.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In relation to mass shootings, talking about gun control is
definitely a 'how' question. It treats the symptoms, but not the disease. And
those symptoms need to be treated - because they cause unbearable pain. But
let's not forget to treat the disease itself. Let's not think that as long as
we put in place tougher gun laws and see no more mass shootings, that the
disease has been 'cured'. It hasn't. Let ask some serious questions about 'why'
mass shootings happen in the first place. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Commenting on the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Sandy
Hook</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Elementary School</st1:placetype></st1:place>
shooting, Governor Dannel Malloy said, 'Evil visited this community today.' </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Really? How did it come? Did it come through a person? Or
through a gun? It's so easy to say things like this because it makes it sound
like something that just happened. We can absolve ourselves of all
responsibility. It doesn't ask the 'why' questions. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don't agree with Governor Malloy. I don't think evil came
to that community. I think that society itself is sick. And in this one place
at this one time, that sickness manifested itself in a terrible way. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jesus told us to have compassion for others. And it is very
easy, as a Christian, to feel compassion for the 28 people that were killed,
for the parents of those 20 children. I have two children. I find it hard even
to imagine how those parents might be feeling because it hurts too much. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, our compassion should not just be for those who are
hurt. It should be for those who do the hurting. It should be for the gunman as
well as the people he shot.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And true compassion does not just say 'I feel for you.' It
enters into people's pain and tries to prevent it. When Jesus healed people
with illnesses and diseases, he was not telling us we should try to perform
miracles. He was showing us that not only does he care about people's pain, but
he tries to heal it. We may not be able to perform miracles, but we should
still do the same. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And so our compassion for the gunman should not just lead us
to say 'let's take away access to guns'. Tougher gun laws would have prevented
the pain of the people who were shot and their families, but it would not have
prevented the pain of the gunman himself. If we truly have compassion for
everyone, then his pain is important too. And so is the pain of people all over
<st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> (and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> and
many other countries) who feel that same type of pain but don't make it onto
the news. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The high suicide rates in both <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>
and the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>
is also a symptom of the disease. I don't know what the cure is. I'm not a
sociologist or a psychologist. But I do know that we need to look for one. And
we need to start looking for ways to treat the disease and not just the
symptoms. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivX6eOH8GujZpvYz8ca_WHJBNE7z2uLgrPiearfyqQRHm-ygRlPGzcZqPKIM145VBB93p0aXqSUqqg66VEmcRgpNcEuKiEnp-adQBRdMyr16j-xZ0oZFNd88f1CNRrMksmqz-QjZh_4pJQ/s1600/196135_527899353887714_734362601_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivX6eOH8GujZpvYz8ca_WHJBNE7z2uLgrPiearfyqQRHm-ygRlPGzcZqPKIM145VBB93p0aXqSUqqg66VEmcRgpNcEuKiEnp-adQBRdMyr16j-xZ0oZFNd88f1CNRrMksmqz-QjZh_4pJQ/s320/196135_527899353887714_734362601_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-24042257117164732732012-12-10T13:05:00.000+11:002012-12-10T13:05:00.264+11:00Getting and giving<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Today’s world
is very focused on getting. Our media is full of advertisements trying to
persuade us to get things. Many of us want to be rich because of all the things
we would then be able to get. We judge lives by how much stuff people have
gotten. When people say someone has done well for themselves, it’s usually
because they have got a high-paying job, a good house and good investments. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But things
don’t need to have a dollar symbol attached, to be part of our culture of
getting. A look at anyone’s to-do list will reveal a wide range of gets. We
want to get fit, get married, get pregnant, get a boyfriend, get more friends, get
famous, get a university degree, get a trophy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And when we
are feeling miserable about our lives, what are we usually upset about? What we
haven’t got. We haven’t received the love, the friendship, the opportunities,
the beauty, the money, the accomplishments, the treatment we deserve. We wanted
to have gotten more and we’re annoyed that we didn’t. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Some churches
have also jumped on the getting bandwagon. They tell Christians about all the
things they can get if they pray. They tell them that God wants them to get
that job, get more money, get healed. We pay a lot of attention to “For
everyone who asks receives”. Not so much
to Act 20, where Paul tells us that Jesus said “It is more blessed to give than
to receive.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Whatever
happened to that? Was is just something that worked well in Jesus’ day, but
isn’t really applicable in today’s consumer culture? I don’t know so. I’m pretty
sure the idea seemed just as strange then as it does now. But it’s often the
things that seem the strangest that have the most to teach us. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s a
completely different way of measuring things than the one we are used to. We
are taught to believe that how much stuff a person has and how much we get is
what’s important. To place more value on giving completely turns things around.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s kind of
hard to get our heads around. We may say it. We may even believe it. But do we
live like this? When we go to bed at night, are we thinking of all the ways we
gave? Or are we thinking about all the things we failed to get, all the things
we did get and all the things we want to get tomorrow? When we write out our
goals, are they all about giving? Or do most of them revolve around getting?
When we think about accomplishments, do we think of the things we gave or do we
think of the ways we got? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">So it’s not
quite gospel truth – but Acts is pretty close and Paul did say that Jesus said
it. So taking it as gospel truth, how does that change the way we think about
our lives? Do we think differently about what ourselves and others have
achieved? Does it change our goals and priorities at all? Does it make us see
that what we thought was important really isn’t that important after all? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And it works.
This isn’t just something that looks good in the bible, but fails to work out
in real life. It really works. A parent receives much joy from their
relationship with their children – even though it is a relationship that involves
lots of giving and not much getting. When I feel down, I have found the best
way to cheer me up is to go out and help someone – and I’m sure I’m not alone.
The happiest people are often those that are in jobs that involve lots of
giving. The unhappiest people are generally the most selfish ones. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">So why not try
it? Cross out a few gets on your goals list and replace them with some gives.
Think about your accomplishments only in terms of what you gave. Try to give
more love than you receive. And if you’re feeling down, forget about cheering
yourself up with a spending spree. Try a giving spree instead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-19768653404271285552012-12-04T13:03:00.000+11:002012-12-04T13:03:00.058+11:00Committed to the cause<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">If I were a
king and wanted to get a whole heap of warriors to fight for me, there are
three ways I could do this. I could scare them into fighting. Threaten to kill
them or torture them or make their life a living hell if they didn’t fight.
That would work – until they started thinking I wasn’t that scary anyway. Until
they began to wonder whether I really had the power or the resources to carry
through on my threats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Or I could
bribe them into fighting for me. Promise them rewards – good pay, gold, land,
whatever. That would work too. Unless they didn’t get those rewards when they
expected them. Or unless those rewards weren’t as good as what they thought
they would be. Or until someone else promised them better rewards. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Or I could get
them committed to the cause. And once they were committed to the cause, I
wouldn’t need to persuade them to fight. They would want to. And they would
fight longer and harder than any of the other two groups of warriors. In a
battle between the three, I’d be backing the ones that are committed to the
cause. I’d rather have ten warriors committed to the cause than 50 warriors who
are there for the rewards or 100 warriors who are there because of fear. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">So too are
there different ways of getting people to follow Jesus. For a long time, the
church relied mainly on fear. There was the fear of hell. But also there was
the fear of the Inquisition or ex-communication if a person failed to believe
or failed to do the right things. It worked. Fear does work. But then people
started to read the bible for themselves. They started to wonder whether the
church was really that scary. They started to doubt if it really had the power
to do the things it had threatened.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Fear is not
such a big thing nowadays, but we still use it. Become a Christian or you will
go to hell, we tell people. And sometimes it works. But it’s kind of lost its
power. Many people nowadays don’t even believe in hell. They are not going to
be scared of going there. Personally, I think hell is a real place and it’s not
somewhere I ever want to go. But it’s a pretty poor reason for getting people
to follow Jesus. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The other way
churches get new Christian recruits is by promising rewards. If you follow God,
he will bless you and make your life better. You’ll get that job, have more
money, be healed, live longer, be happier. That works too. But what happens if
those “rewards” don’t come when the person expected them to. If a person is in
it mainly for the rewards, how long are they going to stick around if they fail
to materialise? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">By far the
best way of getting people to follow Jesus is to get them committed to the
cause. Now, in my opinion, the cause of Christ is the greatest cause in the
world. I don’t see why everybody doesn’t want to fight for him. But I have to
be realistic and recognise that not everybody sees that. I think part of the
problem is that they look at the cause of some Christians, and believe that’s
the cause of all Christians or of Jesus. One example of this is issues of
morality. For many people, the issue of morality is not one worth fighting for.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But the cause
of Jesus is so much greater than this, and I believe there is something in it
that every single person in the world can care passionately about. Instead of
telling new Christians what they should be caring about, we should be helping
them find what it is about Jesus that speaks deeply to them. Do they care about
letting people know of God’s love and acceptance? Are they passionate about
social justice? Is the idea of living a better life with God’s help one that
appeals? Is caring for the poor something that speaks deeply to them? Are they
amazed by this idea that we don’t need to do good works to get into heaven? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This is not to
say that only one issue is important and people can just focus on one issue and
forget about all the rest of what Jesus had to say. But when people become
committed to those aspects that appeal most strongly to them, they will also
see that the rest of what Jesus had to say is also a worthy cause. Commitment
to one issue can soon turn into a very strong commitment to Jesus Christ. And I
would rather have a church full of ten people that are committed to the cause,
than a church of 10,000 people who are not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-54145958019350641572012-11-27T13:01:00.000+11:002012-11-27T13:01:00.618+11:00Nature, Food and God<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Once upon a
time, in the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve wanted something to eat, they
picked it off the nearest tree. Nowadays, we pick it off a supermarket shelf. There’s
something wrong with this picture. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I think that
God designed us to interact with nature. When we do so, there is a spiritual
dimension to that interaction. These sound like religious sounding words, but I
don’t want to suggest that only people of faith have this spiritual dimension
to nature. It can also apply to people without faith – sometimes more so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">One of the
ways we can choose to live more natural lifestyles is through the food we eat.
Many people in the western world don’t eat nearly enough food that could be
considered at all natural. It has been processed, modified and added to. Even
fresh fruit and vegetables that we buy from our supermarkets may not be as
natural as we think it is. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But it’s not
just a matter of what we eat. It’s also how the food that we eat comes to us.
When we buy food from the grocery store, we are pretty much removed from the
whole food process. However, when we grow food ourselves, we are part of that
process. There is something a lot more natural, rewarding and spiritual about
getting our food in this way. Stuff that just can’t be bought in a jar. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">One of the
other aspects of food that we often forget is the cost. No, I don’t mean the
total price when you go through the checkout. But the complete costs to the
world and to the environment is buying processed, packaged food from
supermarkets. There are the costs of transport, processing and packaging (in
terms of environmental costs, using up of resources such as oil, carbon
emissions). When you pick up a product off the shelves, it is worth asking
yourself how much is this costing the world? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Christians are
taught to be good stewards. I don’t believe this just applies to how we use our
money and whether we use it wisely. Although this is important. It also applies
to how we take care of the world around us. We must make the best choices with
what we have. We should also be good stewards of our body. When we eat natural
foods, we are taking care of our body in the best possible way. As well as
this, I think Christians should be people who try to give more and take less.
We should think about this in everything we do – and this includes the food we
eat. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Growing a
vegetable garden or fruit trees is one way that we can interact with nature,
eat more natural food and decrease the cost to the world in terms of our
consumption. Food grown by yourself doesn’t have far to go before it is eaten.
There is far less cost in terms of transport and processing. You also know that
the food you are eating has not been modified or added to in any way. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Not everyone
can grow their own vegetable garden. However, there are other options. Many
communities have community gardens, where people can come and work in the
gardens. It’s worth seeing if there’s one near you. Or if not, why not get one
started? Farmers markets are also a better place to buy fruit and vegetables
than the supermarket. When you buy from a farmers markets, the people selling
their products are local. That means the food has not traveled as far. Also,
because they were themselves involved in the growing of the food, you can ask
them about how it was grown. Try doing that to the checkout operator at the
supermarket. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We’re not in
the Garden of Eden anymore. And let’s face it, no matter how hard we try, very
few of us are going to succeed in leading completely natural lifestyles. But
the closer we get to this, the better we will feel – both physically and
spiritually. I think it’s worth creating our own little <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Garden</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Edens</st1:placename></st1:place>
whenever we can. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-54334671137124920402012-11-23T17:29:00.000+11:002012-11-23T17:29:31.385+11:00Changes to Parenting Payment<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3Obz0LFE8lbZINBAUDRrE8feSF8EQyW41T_dZsJpKnXjpOQiwiW-XONvTHeuK9kC4uD0S8A3_Zun3NU0V0Nxx3Y8Zr1kPPC6qxcxLg69sDcbVu6aMkjhFQ3PBql_gEtgm9aEl7M53uk5/s1600/me+kids+sydney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3Obz0LFE8lbZINBAUDRrE8feSF8EQyW41T_dZsJpKnXjpOQiwiW-XONvTHeuK9kC4uD0S8A3_Zun3NU0V0Nxx3Y8Zr1kPPC6qxcxLg69sDcbVu6aMkjhFQ3PBql_gEtgm9aEl7M53uk5/s200/me+kids+sydney.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I've just been down at Centrelink, learning about how my
parenting payments will stop. Yes, I'm one of those people caught up in the
'grandfather' clause. And yes, I'll receive a pay-cut next year - right when
there are more expenses and not as much income.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But this isn't a self-pitying post. If anything, I feel
lucky. I feel lucky that I am working, so it won't make as much of an impact on
me as other people. I feel lucky that I work from home, which gives me greater
flexibility. I feel lucky that my children are relatively old (11 and 13),
which gives me more ability to find work, without having to limit it
necessarily to school hours. And I feel extremely lucky that I was able to be
there for them in the afternoons up until now.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many people aren't so lucky. For a parent who is not
working, the changes to parenting payment mean a cut of $130. That's an awful
lot of money for someone who isn't earning very much to begin with. And it
comes at a very expensive time - right after Christmas and just before back-to-school
buying. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Plus, it's during school holidays. If someone is lucky
enough to get a job straight away, by the time they pay for holiday childcare,
they may end up with less than they were receiving on parenting payment. Some
parents may decide they have no choice except to wait until after school
holidays to look for a job. And school holidays often involve plans to do
things with the children - plans that may now need to be changed. And as any
parent knows, changed plans often mean disappointed kids. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Furthermore, many parents (usually mothers) will be forced
to take whatever job they can find. Well that's all well and good, you might
say, don't we all have to do that? Yes, but single mothers face more barriers
in getting work than other people. Firstly, they need to find work that fits in
with school hours and available childcare. Also, if they have been raising
children for at least the past eight years, they won't have the same recent
experience and relevant skills as other people. This makes them less
employable. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Many current recipients of parenting payment may be using
their 'child-rearing' years to study and/or do volunteer work to help them get
the job they want once their children are older. Now, they will be forced into
getting whatever job they can. And if they're working full-time, and raising
children by themselves, that doesn't leave much time ever to improve their
skills or study until the children are older. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Plus, some of that re-training is in the form of volunteer
work. Many of our schools would not function if it were not for the volunteer
work done by parents. We need volunteers. What happens to school if there isn't
the same base of 'volunteer mothers' to draw from? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that's not even the most important impact that the changes
to parenting payment will have. The most important impact is that many parents
will now be forced to spend less time with their kids. And quite honestly, I
think that's ridiculous. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I said up above that I am extremely grateful that I have
been able to be there in the afternoons for my children. It has often put a
strain on the budget. But that time is so valuable. I wouldn't exchange it for
anything. And honestly I think the loss of the income I could have made if I
was more prepared to put them in childcare and work full-time was a small price
to pay. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that's not saying that everybody should stay home with
their kids. I'm lucky. I could work from home - so it's not like I wasn't
working at all. Plus the fact that I'm very introverted means I can cope with
working alone in a study a lot better than other people could. I don't think
everybody can make the same choice I did. But I am so glad I was able to make
that choice. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And isn't it better for kids to be with their parents rather
than stuck in childcare - if that's what the parent wants to do? The government
spends money on making sure childcare is available, when there's expert
childcare providers right there in the kids' own homes - who are forced to
leave the home to work. It just doesn't make sense to me. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the kids like being with their parents too. Let's face
it, wouldn't most people prefer to be with someone who loves them rather than
someone who's paid to look after them? My youngest child is now 11. So he's
three years' older than the age at which parenting payments stop. But he's
still not too keen on me working in the afternoon. I am looking for another job
now. After working from home for so long, I think it's time. And it will mean
more money. But I think my youngest child still isn't quite prepared to not see
me as soon as school finishes. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And now many, many kids will be denied that opportunity to
spend that time with their parents. As soon as they turn eight, mum (or dad)
needs to go out and get a job. And I think that's sad. I really do. I think if
kids want their parent at home, and if the parent wants to be at home, then we
should be doing everything to make sure that can happen - not saying, too bad,
your kid's eight, go out and get a real job.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Raising children is a real job - and an extremely important
one. We should be valuing the people who do it - not telling them they should
be doing something different. Or do we only value childcare when it contributes
to the economy? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do need to point out that many parents have been in this
situation for a while. The grandfather clause applies to all people who started
receiving parenting payment before 2006. In 2006, the time at which parenting
payment stopped was changed to when the youngest child turned eight. Everyone
who started receiving parenting payment before then could keep receiving it
until their youngest child turned 16. They've now changed it so that everybody
on that 'grandfather clause' now stops receiving parenting payment if their
youngest child is older than eight. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It makes it more fair - which I suppose is a good thing. But
if we do want everybody to be paid under the same rule, I think we should change
everybody to 16, not change everybody to eight. (I told that to the guy I was
speaking to at Centrelink and he said, no, 18!) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And now that I've mentioned him, just a word on Centrelink
workers before I finish. The guy I spoke to was brilliant. He was compassionate
and understanding. He didn't like the changes anymore than I did. And I felt
really sorry for him, because it sounded like he's been copping a lot of
criticism. I think Centrelink workers in particular often receive a lot of
criticism for things that aren't their fault.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway, now that's said. This new policy is ridiculous. We
should be rewarding parents who want to stay home with their kids. Once upon a
time, women had no choice except to quit work once they fell pregnant. That was
stupid too. And it needed to be changed. But instead of giving women more
choices, it seems now that mothers have no choice except to work. And that's
stupid too. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am lucky. And so are my kids. I am so thankful that I was
able to be there for them. I love afternoons when they come home from school. I
love the opportunity to play and laugh and talk and occasionally do nothing. I
love just the fact that I'm here with them. And I know they've loved it too.
Everybody should get that chance. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And yet so many kids will miss out on that. I don't think
that's fair. I don't think it's right. And I think it will be detrimental to
kids, to women, to families and to society. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-833547834321864748.post-79125343334460926072012-11-20T12:57:00.000+11:002012-11-20T12:57:00.783+11:00Definitions of God (and how our own definitions change)<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Everybody has
their own definitions about God. Even if your definition is “something imagined
by humans that doesn’t really exist”, that’s still a definition. Those who
believe in God may have more complex definitions. They have their own ideas
about who God is, what he does and how he has acted throughout history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">There are no
doubt some people who have never had those definitions challenged. They go
their whole lives believing certain things about God and never experience
anything that might suggest those beliefs may not be completely accurate.
However I would think that these type of people would be few and far between.
Most people have had their definitions of God challenged – sometimes on a
fairly regular basis. On a minor scale, it might just be a slight disturbance
on the faith radar – a minute or two when you wonder whether you definition of
God is really right. On a major scale, it could mean a complete overhauling of
your entire belief system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In Christian
circles, we hear a lot about doubt. Everyone has doubts occasionally, we are
told. But doubt is not good. When a person has doubts, they should just keep
believing anyway. Keep pressing on and our doubts will disappear.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I have spoken
to many Christians who have had lengthy periods of doubt – what might be called
a time in the wilderness. Their definition of God has been challenged so much
that they begin to doubt what they know of him. Does he really love me? Does he
answer prayers? Am I really saved? I’ve had times like that myself. As someone
who constantly questions and challenges, my definitions of God seems to be
under constant attack.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">When I’m in
this position – or when I am talking to someone who has gone through a similar
thing – the presumption is made that a person having those kind of doubts wants
to have those doubts removed. They want to leave the wilderness and get back to
the faith and belief they once used to have. They want God to fit their old
definition again. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But what if he
can’t? What if God has failed to do the things we once believed he would do?
What if the church’s teachings fail to work out in our lives? What if we can’t
reconcile the bible with what we know to be true? What if our definition of God
just doesn’t match up with reality?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Some people
choose to pray and get prayed for until their doubts go away. Others spend
years in the wilderness, never seeing an end in sight. Perhaps on the surface
they appear to believe all the things they’re meant to believe, but underneath
it all they know that their definition of God no longer makes any sense. Others
refuse to acknowledge the doubts the continue to have – even to themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Then there are
those who simply leave – whether it’s church, religion or even God. If they
can’t believe in a God who fits their definition, then they won’t believe in
God at all. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Not that long
ago, I had my definition of God challenged in a big way. God failed to act in a
way I thought he would. God’s love, compassion and control were all
question-marks in my mind. The God of my definition no longer seemed to exist. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But just
because the God who fit my definitions didn’t exist, doesn’t mean God didn’t
exist at all. And just because I was questioning God’s love, compassion and
control doesn’t mean that they were no longer there. It’s just that my
definition was wrong. I needed a new definition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I no longer
think of God the same way I did when I was a child. Nor do I think of him the
same way I did when I was a new Christian. God hasn’t changed. But my way of
defining him has. In another ten years, my definition of God may have changed
again. I don’t want to go back to my old ways of looking at God. Doubt, in a
way, has been good for me. It has moved me onto new ways of looking at God. And
I would prefer to do that than simply have my doubts prayed away until God fits
my definition again. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I don’t
imagine I will ever get to a perfect definition of God. In a way, God cannot be
defined – even though this doesn’t stop us wanting to define him. But that’s
okay. For as long as I am prepared to redefine God – instead of expecting God
to fit my definition – then I will continue to grow. And maybe my definitions
of God will get closer and closer to the truth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03059054907843482358noreply@blogger.com0