Monday, February 23, 2009

We've moved!

In Darkest Australia has now moved to indarkestaustralia.com


All the content from this site has been moved over to the new site. All comments have been carried over as well. No new comments will be approved on this site.


If you subscribe to the RSS feed, or get email updates, you will need to visit the new site and click on the options under "Subscribe to my blog". If you need help then please just email me.


If you have any thoughts or suggestions on the layout of the new site, I would love to hear them via email.


Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the new site.



Friday, February 20, 2009

Salvation as a line in the sand ...

Recently I did a series of posts on Salvation, you can read the introduction to the series here. This post is a follow on to that series.


Many Christians see Salvation as a line in the sand. It is the tool by which WE decided who is in and who is out. I remember the first time I attended the Salvation Army. Upon saying that I had enjoyed the Junior Soldiers lesson and wished to come back the first question was "are you saved?" It would be unfair not to mention that to be a Junior Soldier one had to be 'saved' and you had to be a Junior Soldier to attend the Junior Soldier classes.


It is a question we ask people, usually very subtly, when they enter our faith communities. Usually the question is asked to work out whether they belong in the church, therefore they are just church shopping, or whether they are 'unsaved', therefore we need to 'save' them. Salvation is therefore used as a fence. You are either in or out.


Hirsch and Frost, in their book The shaping of things to come, suggest that this understanding is called a bounded set. The group of people are defined by the boundary. They suggest that a missional church should be a centred set. That is that we should be defined by what is in the centre, God. People are not in or out. They are rather moving towards or away from the centre.


This however upsets our clear definitions. What about the person close to the centre but who is heading away from the centre? Or the person a long distance from the centre but beginning to move in?


Understanding the difference between the bounded and centred set is imperative for overcoming a sense of salvation as a line in the sand. The mission of the church is no longer about 'getting people across the line.' It is instead about journeying with people as they head towards, or away from, the centre.


What do you think?



Thursday, February 19, 2009

The system ...

Today I got shafted by the system. Well, to be honest I don't know if I have been shafted yet, but the potential is definitely there.


The issue of when to fight an unjustice system is as old as time immemorial. We can think of many instances in history (usually recounted in big budget motion pictures) of when individuals have stood up to an unjust system and said "No more!" We can recall the quotes of those who have stood against injustice. "Injustice flourishes when the good remain silent."


Now I may have been slighted by the fact that my indoor soccer team could miss the finals because the stadium let the team above us play a team outside our league instead of the team in our league they were scheduled to play (and would have lost to). The stadium adjusted the rules to suit its economic interests. But in the scheme of things the injustice I felt is but a mosquito bite. But it gives me pause to consider the bigger issue.


The young man behind the counter was within his rights to throw his hands in the air and say "That's how it works. That's the system." That however does not make the system right. Nor does it absolve him of his responsibility. In fact he is complicit in the injustice of the system.


Now you might think I am too harsh on our young friend, who in reality is a really nice and friendly guy. But the issue is that being good, being nice and being friendly does not remove our need to act against injustice.


How can we allow unjust systems to remain? How can we be silent to the systematic abuses of power?


See, I told you, football can explain the world.



Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Networking

Today I attended a networking meeting.


Some people don't like networking. Their experience is that it is boring or a waste of time. Why get together and talk when we don't achieve anything? While this is a valid experience for those people I think they have missed out on the power of effective networking.


Effective business people will tell you that networking is vital to good performance. If you effectively network with those inside your organisation information sharing is enhanced. When tasks need collaboration and specialist input you already have healthy relationships upon which to work.


Networking effectively with those outside your organisation is just as important. For those of us in the community sector we need to partner with those around us. None of us have all the answers. None of us have all the services or resources that our 'clients' need. Effective networking, if nothing else, lets us know who to refer people on to.


I have been involved with a couple of effective church based networks. One was a youth pastors network. We met together monthly and discussed what we were doing and also planned joint events. The group was able to approach the local council and work in partnership with them on a number of projects.


Networks break down when we fail to communicate effectively. Without communication we begin to focus on our own agendas to the detriment of working together. If we communicate and say "hey this is what we are wanting to do" it gives others the opportunity to join us or at least understand where we are coming from. Failing to communicate leaves others guessing at our motives and suspicious of our activities.


Got any thoughts on networking? Been involved in any good, or bad, networks?



Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Concentration

Today I got to play some chess with a mate of mine. When we first started playing together I could not beat him. Every time we would play he would out smart me. We both stopped playing as regularly, chess in those days were a good distraction from our lives. Recently we have both had the chance to rekindle our friendly competitive spirit.


No more do I loose every game. Recently my friend would have to admit that I have held the upper hand. Today in our opening game I even managed to capture him in 'Fool's Mate' a move where you are able to win the game in 4 moves if the other player doesn't notice. It was a trick that he had used on me many times in 'the old days' and so I was pleased that it came off.


As we played our games drew into extended battles. A number of times I found myself with the upper hand. I had taken a number of his pieces and was in the stronger position. Yet I failed to capitalise. I took my eye off the pieces, I failed to concentrate and I stopped looking ahead. Funnily enough I lost.


It has reinforced to me the importance, in both chess and life, of concentration. If we take our eye off the board we will get bitten. If we loose our focus on the road ahead we will end up in the ditch. When life is going easy it is not difficult to loose concentration. Why bother planning ahead when everything is going well? The same is true of when times are tough. We are so caught up in the next move we loose the bigger picture and find ourselves chasing our tail.


Its funny how chess and life are so similar.



Monday, February 16, 2009

Salvation in the Lord's Prayer

This post is part of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


Today I want to reflect on the picture of salvation that is given to us in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13).


The Lord's Prayer is a great example not only of how to pray and what to pray for. It also reveals the heart of God, because in it Jesus is telling us what God cares about.


"Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name" - It begins by reminding us of our place in the world. God is in heaven, we are not. (remember the point of the fall story.)


"Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - The kingdom of God is meant to come on earth, it is not about getting to heaven. Salvation is therefore about this world, we are saved in the present not in the future. It also shows that salvation is meant for the whole of creation, not just humans getting to heaven.


"Give us today our daily bread" - When we reorient our lives towards God we find that God provides for us. But it is on his terms and not ours. God gives us what we need, not what we want. This may mean we have to go without, which doesn't sit well with our consumerist society.


"Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." - We tend to think of salvation as being about God forgiving our sins. But it also about being able to forgive those around us. This heals both us and them and creates real community.


"And lead us not into to temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." - God gives us the power to overcome the temptation that plague us as humans. We are no longer forced to live by selfish impulse.


Do you really want to join Jesus in this radical and subversive prayer?



Friday, February 13, 2009

Sorry ...

This post first appeared on the Just Salvos blog.


As you are not doubt aware today marks the first anniversary of Australia's apology, through the Federal Parliament, to the indigenous people of this nation who were affected by and involved in the Stolen Generation. I say that you are no doubt aware because it has obviously been at the forefront of media coverage, bushfires not withstanding. The media has been falling, head over heels to report on the numerous ways that we have moved forward as a nation in this new sense of reconciliation. The media has highlighted the stories of individuals from the Stolen Generation who have used the Government's compensation money to turn their lives around. We have seen the massive investment in rural health clinics and support services for indigenous people living in remote locations. You have seen the coverage, haven't you?


Of course you haven't and neither have I. We haven't seen the coverage because there hasn't been any to see. It is not the fault of the bushfires either. There has been no coverage because their is nothing to report. Twelve months ago Kevin Rudd stood up and apologised on behalf of the nation to the indigenous people affected by racist Government policies. He committed the government to tackling the huge social problems facing our indigenous population. Not least to tackling the 17 year life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.


On this day one year ago we all celebrated a watershed in reconciliation. It was to be as important, if not more important, than Mabo and Wik. The government was implored to back up the symbolic act of an official apology with real action. But there has been no action. Australia's racial discrimination act is still suspended with relation to the quarantining of indigenous Australian's welfare payments. The Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) has been scaled back in outback Northern Territory, meaning many indigenous people have lost that employment and are forced onto the dole. There has been no major spending increase on indigenous health programs or facilities.


Today the Parliament passed the Economic Stimulus package after amendments forced through by the minor parties and the independents in the Senate. Nearly a billion dollars is now to be spent on the Murray-Darling basin, one of Australia's most important water systems, because one elected senator stood up for his constituents. But who stood up and asked for real money to be committed to indigenous Australians? Who wrote to their local member or senator and asked that the stimulus package include housing for remote indigenous communities? Who asked that the job creation measures include the resumption of the CDEP and the employment that it brought for indigenous communities?


To say sorry was an important step. It was a watershed moment for our nation. But if it continues to be let down by a lack of action then as a nation we all suffer. It is time to Close the Gap.



Thursday, February 12, 2009

Win or lose?

As a lover of Football I am constantly asked to explain my love for the game. The most common argument against football is "how can you watch a game that can end in a nil all draw. How boring!" People who don't understand the game fail to appreciate what is happening. Sometimes a much weaker team plays a much stronger team. The stronger team repeatedly attacks the weaker team's goal, but the underdogs miraculously hold out for a draw and a vital point for the ladder. That is exciting, not boring.


Australian's struggle with the concept of a draw on the sporting field. We kind of get a draw in cricket, which is usually a good result for a team who has not played well in the match but are able to "salvage the draw." We need to have a clearly defined winner and looser.


What does this winning mentality mean beyond the sporting arena? If we have a differing opinion to someone we get into a debate, however subtle, so that we can feel we won. Instead of being able to share our different viewpoints and expand our understanding of an issue, we 'fight to the death.' Our need to win not only harms our ability to work together it also threatens diversity. If we have to beat the people who are different to us then they won't want to work with us or hang around us.


What if we approached our relationships, not as sporting battles, but as a place where a draw was the best result? A place where the most important thing is to allow everyone to share their opinion, thoughts and skills. Where we didn't use those things to win, but rather to learn from one another.


Perhaps it is time to play for the draw?



Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Open your eyes!

Today I went out for lunch with some friends. We had some time before an appointment and so we decided to walk down to the train station to watch while some buildings were demolished. We decided to walk down an alleyway and through a piazza (or square) at the back of the shop where we had eaten lunch. The council has, in the last two years, spent a lot of money to redesign the square to attract people into the square. One of my friends was totally blown away by this 'hidden' square. He had lived in our community for most of his life, but had never walked down the lanes that lead into this square. For the next five minutes he kept telling us how amazed he was that this magnificent square existed and yet he had never seen it before.


Yesterday I took a group of year 9 students from the local high school for a walk around Footscray. I encouraged them to open their eyes and look at what was happening around them. They really struggled with this task. They wanted to see the same stereotypes that they saw everyday as they walked through our community.


Most of the time I love walking through my community. I get to see people as they go about their business. All sorts of people going about their days. I especially love running into people I know and being able to have a chat. But I wonder how much I really see? I wander the same well worn paths and usually I don't pay too much attention. But when I do pause, when I look around, I see an amazing community. When I open my eyes to new people and experiences I am amazed that they don't fit my stereotypes.


What have you seen in your community lately?


What I read today:


Danny Nilliah Boycott


The double life of the missionary



Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A free media?

I have been reading and watching, as a lot of people have, the coverage of the Bushfires here in Victoria over the past four days. I have seen the tremendous work of some media outlets in providing relevant information that has relieved the pressure on the official CFA and DSE websites.


But I have also paused to reflect on the role of the media, both on the lives of the victims of this tragedy and on the lives of those outside of the direct path of the Bushfires. We are a generation that is now expectant of our media outlets to provide us with wall to wall coverage of a major event. We expect to see the devastation and hear the stories of both miracle survivals and painful loss. We want to feel close to the news. But we also want to be separate from it. The media does not show the charred bodies of wildlife clogging the roads. It does not show us the devastating effects of burns on human skin. It can not show us the ongoing psychological scars of people who have had to make split second life and death decisions.


The media coverage that we expect is intrusive upon those who have already suffered so much. Speaking to someone working at a relief centre, she recounted how the media would surround people who had broken down under the emotional strain of their experience. For her to offer them physical comfort only made the 'shot' more photogenic.


I came across this great interview with a Kinglake resident. He summed up the role of the commercial media thus, "all the commercial television stations, radio stations use some of your advertising money to get helicopters to drop off supplies, You're making good money out of this sad story. Kinglake is stronger than you will ever be."


The wall to wall media coverage of this tragedy has challenged many Victorians to offer assistance. Victorians are opening their wallets in response to what they see on the television and read in the papers. There can be no doubt that this assistance is required. This crisis has highlighted the need for emergency crisis housing. There are not enough crisis housing properties in Victoria but this is never highlighted on the nightly news.


Perhaps it takes a crisis to draw Victorians together precisely because it is in crisis that the media shows us how much we are all alike and how much we need each other. We shouldn't have to wait for the crisis! We shouldn't have to wait for the media! Donate blood. Give real money to charities. These should not be one off responses to the media highlighting a crisis. These should be our standard response.


What I read today:


How romatic comedies ruin your life


Anglicanism may not be coherent enough to fracture



Monday, February 9, 2009

Welfare dependency

I have been thinking a lot recently about the connection between welfare dependency and Christian 'good works'. Perhaps this has more to do with my missional context than yours, but please bear with me.


Welfare dependency is when people have received assistance (of a material, social or professional capacity) for so long that they become dependant on that assistance. The classic stereotype highlighted by A Current Affair is the dole bludger who refuses to 'get a job'. Obviously this stereotype, as with all stereotypes, is a gross generalisation that ignores the complex reality of each individual's story. Welfare dependency is a failure of the system to properly empower individuals to assist themselves. It can also be a failure of individuals to take responsibility for their own situation. It is compounded by issues such as mental health issues, long term unemployment, lack of job opportunities, being a single parent and the behaviour of well meaning social workers.


When welfare dependency meets with Christian 'good works' we have a problem. I use 'good works' here to mean those activities undertaken by Christians to help people. These activities can be purely from a social gospel viewpoint, or from a 'works as mission' viewpoint.


For a welfare dependant person (WDP) their relationship with a service is based on what they can receive. Christian groups that offer something to the WDP will be viewed as similar to any other service. The more involved the Christians get in the person's life, the more they become like any other of their 'workers.'


How do we do authentic mission in this situation? How do we avoid our messianic complex being fed by their need for us?


I don't have any answers for these questions. They are just some of the questions I am thinking through at the moment. What thoughts do you have?



Friday, February 6, 2009

What salvation is not

This post is final of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


I feel that there is really a lot of misconceptions out there about salvation. People don't know how to explain salvation other than using classic cliques that are perhaps at best over simplified and at worst down right manipulative. So here I go with 5 things I think salvation is not.


1) Salvation is not an emergency, well not quite.


I have been to many an evangelical rally and have heard a few one on one evangelical discussions where the concept of "if you die tonight will you go to Heaven or Hell" was used. Now to me that is down right manipulative. Salvation is not a used car. It doesn't need a used car salesman's pitch. If salvation isn't something that people can walk away from, mull over and make an informed decision about then I for one am worried.


2) Salvation is not as simple as the four spiritual laws or praying the sinners prayer.


This goes with the above point. Salvation isn't as simple as getting someone to follow some steps. Salvation doesn't come from in-canting some magical words. If salvation is truly about an individual coming into relationship with God then every individual is going to do that in an individual way.



3) Salvation is not a quick fix.


God doesn't change us overnight. That is what we have lives, faith communities, the bible and Christian friends for. Too many people 'make a commitment' expecting it to fix all their problems, because that is what has been sold to them. (see point 1)



4) Salvation is not a line in the sand that signifies who is in and who is out.


This will be a topic for another post, but I want to mention it now. It is us who use 'salvation' as a tool to judge who is going to heaven/in the church/part of the kingdom/etc.



5) Salvation is not enough.


Being saved is all well and good, BUT you are REALLY saved when you ...


... get baptised


... put on a uniform


... give to the church


... become a missionary


... become an officer/minister/priest


... follow all the rules


... look like everyone else in our church



Sorry today has been a slightly longer post. Do you have any other thoughts on what salvation is not?


Thursday, February 5, 2009

Depravity

This post is part of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


Yesterday I blogged on the topic of the fall and today I want to follow on with the closely related topic of depravity. Depravity is the theological concept that all humans are affected by sin.


Some Christians understand depravity to mean that humanity is inherently evil. That is, our natural inclination is towards evil. In this understanding salvation is therefore God removing the evil from us and allowing us to become good.


This however is not the Salvationist, or my, position. Rather we understand depravity to mean that there is no area of humanity that is not affected by sin. Humanity is inherently good, that was how God created us, but because of our depravity we can never be totally good. Because we are good we can strive to come closer to God and do good deeds. This however is not enough for salvation. Doing good will not save us, we still need God to act.


The first view does not allow God to work outside of Christians. The second view sees God being at work in all of creation, whether it is recognised or not. The first view suggests that those who aren't saved are inherently bad and therefore God has condemned them. The second suggests that God sees humanity as his children, wayward and in need of direction and assistance. Without God's assistance humanity will falter and people will fall off the rails.


What about you? Which view resonates with your experience of humanity?


What I read today:


being human


Hyperreal missional churches



Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Fall

This post is part of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


The Christian understanding of salvation is usually linked to the account of 'the Fall' told in Genesis chapter 3. I choose not to use the phrase 'directly linked' because I think that there are other ways of understanding salvation separate to the Genesis account of 'the Fall.'


Contrary to popular understanding the issue at the centre of 'the fall' is not about eating a piece of fruit. The issue is that by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would come to understand the world in a whole new way. The temptation of the serpent is that "if you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (v5) The 'sin' was to desire to be like God, in control.


Now some Christians believe that the original act of disobedience outlined in Genesis 3 had to have taken place in some form at some point in history. This happened and by that original act 'sin' entered the world.


I however think the Genesis 3 story holds a much bigger truth than one isolated event at some point in the past. I think it is a story that replays itself multiple times a day in each of our lives. Sin didn't need to enter the world through Adam and Eve because it enters the world everyday when I decide, rather than God, what is good and evil. When I choose to eat the fruit, rather than listening to God, I am bringing sin into the world. When I bring sin into the world the consequences are far reaching. They do not only affect me, but affect those around me.


Salvation comes when we allow God to be God.


What I read today:


More heatwaves likely as climate change worsens


What is the transforming theology project?



Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Salvation from dualism

This post is part of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Richard Rohr and he made an interesting comment. He talked about the idea of Salvation from dualism. Dualism is the idea of a state of opposites. For example good and evil, right and wrong, in and out, saved and non-saved.


Rohr, as a good Franciscan, was suggesting that a spirituality that engaged with the everyday freed us from the binary opposites of good and evil. It allowed us to see the world as a grey space. Spirituality is therefore about living in the grey and conversing with God as to a proper response, a proper lifestyle and an effective spirituality.


In Salvation Army parlance we too have striven to overcome the problem of a dualistic view of salvation. We had the term 'full salvation'. The concept being that it wasn't enough to suggest there were those who were in and those who were out. Of course being good Victorian evangelicals we had to have 'the line' of salvation, but there was a recognition that it wasn't enough. Those who were 'saved' needed to work towards a full salvation.


Rohr suggested that being saved from dualism meant that our Christian faith is no longer about a set of rules to follow. It is not about what is right and what is wrong. Spirituality, morality and ethics must be much more living and engaging than a static set of rules. For Rohr, following the ancient spiritual practices engages us in a spirituality of action and reflection based on engagement with the scripture. Through this process we are transformed because we are meeting God where God is at work in the world, not through following all the rules.


How do you overcome a dualistic faith?


What I read today:


Defined by things


Rescuing Darwinism


Fools rush in



Monday, February 2, 2009

A new creation?

This post is part of a series of posts on the topic of Salvation. Here is the introduction to the series.


My previous post and subsequent discussion on the end of the world highlighted the image of a new creation. I think that the biblical theme of a new creation, which relates to both individuals and all of creation, is an image of Salvation.


Paul uses the image of individuals being a new creation in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5. In the context of the chapter, Paul is using the image of being a new creation to suggest that as Christians we need to move beyond the limitations of living in 'earthly bodies' an image of a pre-Christian state. In verse 15 he suggests that "those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."


Here Paul gives us the key to how the image of a new creation is one of salvation. A Christian is saved from living for themselves. A Christian is saved to living for something beyond themselves. God created us to live in community with each other and in relationship to him. Being 'saved' invites us back into community and relationship with God. We can put aside our selfish desires and aspirations and follow God's desires and aspirations.


This is not to suggest that a new creation destroys the old creation. Paul was a Jew. He was a Pharisee, the most religious of Jews. After his conversion he did not cease to be a Jew. Paul's theological understanding is pinned on figuring out what it means to be a Jew who follows Jesus. Who he is is enhanced by being a new creation. His old self is not annihilated, it is renewed.


We are not saved so that we can hate our former self. God did not save us in order to destroy who we once were.



Friday, January 30, 2009

Salvation

This post is the introduction to a series of posts I am going to write on the topic of Salvation. This post will outline some of the questions that I am hoping to explore in the series.


Why do we need to be saved? Some people think that a Christian understanding of salvation is just a way to make people feel guilty. They think that the church uses the concept of salvation as a way of controlling people and keeping them in line. So is there a need to be saved or is it just a tool for controlling people?


Who saves? When talking about salvation Christians are usually very Christ-centric. But we worship a triune God. How do the Father and the Spirit act in salvation? Is salvation only available to those people who lived after Christ? Is salvation through Christ the only way that God's salvation operates?


Who can be saved? Some say that if God is all knowing and all powerful then he either chooses who will be saved, or knows in advance who will be saved. But if this is so then how do we have free will?


What are we saved from? Talk to most people on the street and they wouldn't be able to tell you what the word 'sin' means. Are we saved from sin? What about being saved from infirmities? What about being saved from ourselves?


What are we saved to? If a drowning man is 'saved' he is pulled to the shore or into a boat. What about the Christian, what are we saved to? Is it temporary or longer lasting?


What misconceptions do we have about salvation?


Feel free to post some questions you have about salvation and we will see if we can't explore them together.


What I read today:


Thoughts on yesterday's bridge tragedy


Totally tolerant, up to a point



Thursday, January 29, 2009

The parable of the talents

I was reading yesterday about the negative power of low self esteem. He suggested that self esteem is a crippling infirmity (in the biblical sense) that prevents people from trusting fully in God and living out their potential.


The author used the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) as his example. Three servants are given talents (a unit of money) with each one receiving according to their ability. The first receives five talents, the second three and the last one talent. The first and second servants go and invest the money so that upon the master's return they are able to hand him double the amount he had entrusted them with. However the third servant buried the money, fearing that he would loose it and the master would seek retribution.


Now the point the author was making was that the third servant had an ability. The servant's ability was to administer one talent. The point is not that he could only administer one, it is that it was within his capability to administer that talent. But his low self esteem convinced him not to invest the talent. It nagged at him and said "if you invest the talent you will stuff up and will loose it."


The author suggests that the negative power of low self esteem is that it prevents people seeing that they have talents (of the non-monetary kind) that are within their ability to use. Everyone has talents. Christians have natural talents and God given giftings (however you understand that idea). When we trust our low self esteem, rather than trusting in God we are selling ourselves and God short.


What is your low self esteem telling you can't do? What would it look like if you trusted God rather than your low self esteem?



Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Its the end of the world as we know it ...

Naomi commented on yesterday's post and I wanted to pick up a thought that she mentioned. She said that some people think that Global Warming (and other disasters and calamities) are a result of the 'end times' and is what is supposed to happen before Jesus returns.


Time and space is too limited for a long discussion on eschatology (belief about the end times) but I think that the idea of God's destruction being wrought on the earth is important in the context of an ecological theology or a Christian response to global warming and other environmental issues.


Genesis 1 tells us that God created the world and it was good. The idea of the world being evil is not a biblical idea, it is a Greek philosophical belief. Paul tells us that all creation groans for the redemptive work of Christ. That doesnt just relate to all the people (otherwise it would have said that). Paul is here suggesting that the redemptive work of Christ relates to creation. God is wanting to redeem creation.


Another problem we have is we think of God as a creator. God created the world and left it to go. The Hebrew understanding of God was one of re-creator. The work of creation is not finished. The biblical story is one of God interacting with creation. In the flood narrative we see God changing the way the creation works (the first time it rained).


I think end times belief is a classic example of Christian culture winning out over a Biblical understanding. A lot of Christians I know would be able to tell me the theology of the 'Left behind' series but would struggle to outline a biblical theology of the end times.


I have decided to stop adding links to what I have been reading each day because no one seems to have been looking at them. But if you want to check out some photos of my hike on the weekend check here.



Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Heat wave

Victoria is in the midst of the longest heat wave since 1908. We are due 4 days in a row over 40 degrees. I am going to avoid the temptation to comment about global warming.It has got me thinking however about an issue that would usually not even be noticed.


Air-conditioning.


Lots of people have it and lots of people use it. We have one and I have to admit that we do use it every so often. Now I also know lots of people who don't have air-conditioners. People on low incomes can't afford to have an air-conditioner. Air-conditioners, like it or lump it, are to some extents a class distinction.


The second issue is of course that air-conditioners use a lot of electrical power. Talk to anyone in the power industry and they will tell you that hot days are when we get to peak electrical load. Of course we all know where Victoria's electricity comes from, and that isn't good for the environment.


I think the problem of air-conditioning is bigger than just the individual units. We build skyscrapers with all this glass on the outside then spend huge amounts of money cooling them down on hot days. We build inefficient, unsustainable housing that requires us to cool it down. Friends of mine have bought canvas awnings to go on the outside of their windows, because that cuts down the amount of heat entering the house by upwards of 80%. We need to do more to think about our lifestyle and not just take the easy option of flicking a switch to make us cool. In the long run that switch is precisely what is heating us up. Whoops, it seems I did mention global warming.


What I read today:


The president, a man of faith


one incite, two cultures



Friday, January 23, 2009

Dragon Boat Racing

(This post is actually yesterday's post. I lost the internet last night and so was delayed in posting this.)


Today I went out in a Dragon Boat. It was for work, so we had 8 young people in the boat plus a couple of workers and I was at the back steering the thing. We went out on the Yarra, at the boat sheds and it was quite busy on the water.


Now Dragon Boating is a team sport. Someone sits at the front and bangs the drum to get everyone to row in time. The weight of the crew needs to be balanced on either side of the boat for stability. If people start moving around the boat can tip over. If everyone doesn't paddle at the same time the boat becomes unstable. If someone decides to stop paddling then the boat starts to turn.


It got me thinking about teamwork. Sometimes there is time for democracy. "Who has had enough for the day and wants to get out?" Sometimes there is no time for democracy and you just have to knuckle down and follow the leader. "Watch out for the cruise boat about to ram us!" There is no time for people to panic, stand up and scream "We're going to tip over." Usually if someone does that, that is when the boat tips over.


The problem with good teamwork is knowing what is appropriate for the time. Most teams are autocratic for long periods of time because they either have a controlling leader, lazy team members or decide that democracy is too hard. For most people our default setting seems to be 'tell me what to do.' Good leaders overcome this by encouraging groups to work together to set goals and then implement strategies for achieving them.


How's your dragon boat going?


What I read today:


Service vs Devotion to Jesus


Obama and Gen Y: When the Honeymoon ends



Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Practice makes perfect

Today I went and watched the Melbourne Victory open training session. It was a good way to spend the morning, sitting in the shade, watching my team run around. After their warm up and a few drills they got into a practice game and we were able to watch them working hard to prepare for a must win game on Friday night. While the team was practising there was very loud music emanating from the ground's speaker system. I was forced to wonder if it was to prevent us hearing the tactical discussions happening on the pitch.


Of course today's practice session was a good bit of public relations. The fans turned up. We sat and watched. We oohed and we  ahhed. The players even turned the tables and gave us a clap for coming out to watch them run around.


It makes you wonder if professional sporting clubs use a practice session as a publicity exercise how much do we use our daily practices as one too. The religious practices we do, turning up to church, playing in the band, praying in public, etc. Are these things a mere publicity exercise? I have to challenge myself a lot. If I commit to do something, what are my real motives? If I do it out of obligation, then am I not just publicising my practice?


Publicity is a double edged sword. Today the Victory built up some good will with their supporters. But their training session could also have been infiltrated by spies from Wellington, our opposition on Friday night. By their openness the club could have displayed their tactics for all to see. This too is true for our Christian practice. If we are in the public eye then we are open to both praise and ridicule, positive and negative judgement.


What I read today:


Russians strengthen their faith with an icy plunge


A motto for the people



Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Attitude

Today I went and saw the Australian Open tennis. What struck me about the sport is just how much the player's attitude affects their performance. Of course you see Lleyton Hewitt yelling 'come on' to himself to give himself a lift. But until I was metres away from the players I didn't get it.


We arrived as a player was leading the set 5 games to 1 after losing the first set. But we arrived at the turning point of the set. As his opponent started to win games, this player started to loose his cool. His attitude went from one of cocky self confidence to aggravation. After his opponent won the set 7 to 5 he threw his racquet across the court and stormed out of the arena. When he arrived back for the third set he was constantly arguing with the umpire and grumpy with himself. He lost.


It got me reflecting on my own attitudes. I recognise that I have bad attitudes at times. Now it would be easy to say that we should all just switch our attitude, but that would be a glib, unhelpful platitude. I admit that I don't have an easy answer. I struggle to change my attitude. Sometimes I am forced to challenge my attitude by spending time with people or a situation towards which I have a bad attitude. As I have suggested before, if we can learn to understand our differences and embrace our diversity then we can move forward together. For me this is usually the only way that I can change a bad attitude. But of course it takes a commitment to challenge myself. Sometimes I just couldn't be bothered with the challenge. But when I can be, I find that I do move forward and 'win the match.'


What about you?


What I read today:


Under Obama the radical religious conservatives could become more dangerous than ever



Monday, January 19, 2009

Giving Blood

Today I gave blood. Every couple of months I go into the city and donate 470ml of my O+ blood to the Red Cross. I think it is a great thing to do and everyone who is eligible should get in there and give it a go. And for those who don't like needles, neither do I.



Here's why I think giving blood is such a good thing to do.



1) It is easy. You just sit there and it flows right out of you. It's almost as if your body is designed to do it, bleed that is.



2) It makes a difference. Just ask anyone who has received blood or a blood product. Think of people in emergency wards across the state, people receiving treatment for cancer, etc.



3) It is an anonymous, random act of kindness. I don't know what the blood bank is going to do with my donation today. I don't know if they are going to send it to an operating theatre to put into someone who has had a workplace accident. I don't know if they are going to split it into various parts and in a months time 5 different people will be walking around with a bit of me pumping around inside them.



4) It is egalitarian. My blood could go to an AFL footballer, a high flying businessman or a homeless guy who got beaten up by some idiot. It doesn't matter. I don't give to receive, although I do hope if I ever need blood there will be enough for me.



5) It reminds us that on the inside we really are all the same. We all bleed the same colour. My blood is the same blood as everyone else. It is all interchangeable (within blood type compatibility's obviously).



When are you going to give?


What I read today:


The forgotten victims of the Middle East


Rick Warren: Political and Moral Agendas



Saturday, January 17, 2009

My name is Earl

Yesterday I watched the comedy show 'My name is Earl'. Earl is a bad boy who the law finally caught up with. While in goal he was introduced to the idea of karma. Earl's life is forever changed and upon release he writes a list of all the bad things he has done to people. He then sets about righting the wrongs on his list so as to avoid bad karma. He has a very simplistic understanding of karma, which adds to the laughs.


What happens every episode is that Earl goes to make up for his wrong doings. He expects it to be a simple case of righting the wrong. However every episode shows the ongoing consequences that his actions have had on his victims.


Now obviously I don't believe in karma, but the show highlights that even small actions have very large impacts on the lives of the people involved.


When I reflect back on my own life I realise that who I am today is because of the thousands of little incidents that have happened over my life, rather than 4 or 5 'life changing moments'. I realise that how we handle the small things really does matter in the long term. My life has been impacted by small decision others have made about themselves, my interaction with them has been a by-product of their decisions.


Social Justice is a labour of small incidents. Choosing which tea to buy. Reading an article on sexual trafficking. Marching in an anti-war rally. Writing a letter. In and off themselves these are small acts, but they can have huge impacts.


Just like Earl we need to realise that if we do one small thing, good or bad, the flow on effects are huge.


Got any examples?


What I read today:


A peace rally where they wanted the soldiers to fight on


Communication quotes



Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Inclusion

How do we include people in what we do? How do we invite others to include people they find it hard to include?


I think that community should be a place of inclusion. We invite people into community so that we can share with them and they with us. Community therefore is inclusive by nature. But problems always arise. We have groups within our communities. One group is included in the whole community but struggles to be inclusive of an individual or another group within the community. What is worse is when those who are not included do not realise they are not included. People with mental health issues, or lacking the social skills to recognise that other people seek to not include them.


I do think there is a difference between excluding people and not including them. It is a fine line. It would be easy to say that exclusion is when we actively seek to stop people from being involved. But what about excluding people by not being sensitive to their needs? Holding a meeting in a building with a flight of stairs stops people in wheelchairs from attending. The choice wasn't made actively to exclude those people, but the choice of venue is certainly not inclusive of people with varying needs.


I believe in Christian community we should provide an inclusive environment for people who struggle to be included elsewhere. But how do we handle people who feel included themselves but wish others to not be included? It is not as easy as saying 'You should include them because they have no friends, just like you have no friends.' It is the challenge of creating real community rather than just a group of people who gather together to receive something (friendship, acceptance, etc.)


What is your experience?


What I read today:


The audacity of hope



A rational world



Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The end of an era

Today I attended my 91 year old grandfather's funeral. My grandfather was a true gentleman. To hear him acknowledged as such by a wide variety of people, people his own age, people who work with people his age and people of younger generations, suggests the truth of the statement.


He was a gentleman and as I reflected on his passing I was forced to reflect on the passing of the idea of being gentleman. The ideals that I think of when I remember his life are not the ideals that I see in society around me. The little things, like opening a door for a lady and always walking on the roadside of the footpath (to get hit first by a wayward car) that reflected his understanding of his role in the world. He was far from a servant, but he did serve. He was also a gentle man. As far as I understand he swung the belt when needed (he was a man of his time), but it was a role he filled rather than a role he loved. He served his country in a time of war. He served his community and his family in times of peace.


He was an 'Aussie battler' of the real variety, rather than the A Current Affair kind. He worked on a dairy farm, when the land was cleared by hand. He drove a milk truck, when the milk crates were lifted onto the truck rather than the milk being pumped. He drove trucks and towed the caravan around Australia in a time before airconditioning, powersteering, ABS brakes and tinted windows.


I reflected today on the place of the gentleman in Australian society. Is it a quaint ideal? Does it belong to a bygone era, when men were Men and women stayed at home, cooked the dinner and did the washing? But again that isn't what I hear of my grandfather's life story. He was a man who loved the farming lifestyle. The hard work, the outdoors, the mateship. But he also loved his family, and they couldn't endure the farming life. So he moved into town and raised his family, still doing hard physical work.


I don't think the idea of the gentleman is a quaint ideal. I don't think that it belongs in a bygone era. I do see in some of my male friends a flicker of that gentlemanly spark. The virtues of hard work, service, commitment to family, simplicity, humility and dependability are ones I wish to emulate.


Here is a poem that my grandmother wrote about her husband:


Les


He stands tall among me:


Outstanding!


Because of his simplicity;


Expecting little from life


for himself


And yet


He gives freely of his skills


His time, his love


To others


Never one to blow his own trumpet


Though he has plenty to blow


his trumpet about ...


Always read for a laugh


For his ready wit he is valued


He sees in simple things


The larger picture;


Not obscured by wealth


Or the need to perform


to other's standards


He is always there when needed


He is strong, reliable, kind,


His name is Les.



Monday, January 12, 2009

Commun...

Had a chat to some friends today and we got to discussing communication in community, of course after the obligatory discussion about the weekend's football action. Whilst having this discussion a very basic concept hit me in the face. It is so basic a concept that we often over look it. Community, Communication, Commune, Communion, Commonwealth, etc. are all words built on the same root word.


When we are in community we share something in common. When we communicate we share seeking to find common ground. A commune is a group of people living in community sharing ownership and the division of labour. Communion is the people of God sharing together in a common activity and relating to God. A Commonwealth is where the wealth of a nation is considered to be held in common by all the people.


Obviously that is a gross simplification of each of those concepts but the simplicity of their connection hides the challenge inherent in the idea of commonality.


In community it is much easier to find that which divides rather than that which we have in common. In communication it is easier to argue over a slight difference than seek to find the common ground. In the Christian traditions how we do Communion (or don't do it) can be one of the biggest points of conflict between us. In our Commonwealth we do a good job of dividing the nation rather than uniting around our common values, ideals and beliefs (in a non-Howardian way).


Tomorrow I am going to try to spend the whole day looking for what I have in common with the people around me. Why don't you try it as well? I would love to hear how you get on in the comments.


What I read today:




Who would Jesus smackdown?


A Prayer ritual shared in religion and football



Friday, January 9, 2009

Deferred responsibility

Modern western society is built on the idea of the Social Contract. Individuals of a society give up some of their rights to the nation in exchange for the benefits that being part of that nation. For example citizens give up the right to absolute freedom in exchange for the civil order that comes from having laws and a police force to enforce those laws. The social contract is also the idea that gives legitimacy to governments and states. Individual citizens form a social contract with the state and allow it to exist.


The second theory I was thinking about today is the idea of a deferred responsibility. A parent who sends their child on a school holiday program while they work is an example of a deferred responsibility. The parent is responsible for their child's supervision over the holiday period but instead they defer that responsibility to the provider of the holiday program.


As a society we have become very good at the concept of deferred responsibility. As part of the social contract we defer responsibility for providing for the disadvantaged in our community to the government who have then deferred that on to private organisations. When we watch 'a Current Affair' and they show us the poor state of a nursing home we immediately lambast the money hungry owners of the nursing home. However under the concept of the social contract we are all responsible, by extension, for that nursing home.


As far as the social contract extends we as citizens are responsible for the actions of our government because we have given them legitimacy through the social contract. We are therefore responsible for their budgets, their wars, their healthcare plans, their lack of public transport, etc.


Do you take this into account when you watch 'A Current Affair'?


What I read today:


Behold the Jewish Jesus


Emergent Salvationism



Thursday, January 8, 2009

Desensitised

I presented a workshop today at the National Christian Youth Convention (NCYC). During my presentation I showed a video produced by Stop the Traffik which, among other things showed a protest featuring a girl holding a sign which had written on it "13 year old virgin for sale". The protest was to highlight the plight of the victims of human trafficking. During the question time I was asked if the pack I was talking about had any information on how to handle sensitive topics like that with young people. It wasn't something that we had thought about when putting the packs together.


Whilst acknowledging the relevance of the question and the need for information along those lines I also responded with a thought in the back of my head. I said that this generation of young people is perhaps the most desensitised to violence and other visual stimuli generation ever.


I was reminded of the group of young people in Britain who stood at the bottom of a building while a young person stood at the top and threatened to jump to end his life. The young people on the ground were yelling out to the boy at the top to jump. The police were horrified but were unable to stop the mob. When the boy eventually jumped, the crowd rushed forward with their mobile phones out to record and photograph the dead body.


I wonder how much this desensitisation has effected young people's interest in issues of justice? The news reports coming out of Gaza are just another movie on the TV showing war and destruction. Why should we care? These are not the images of the Vietnam war beamed back to a disbelieving public who had never witnessed anything like that.


Do we care? Are we too desensitised?


What I read today:


A statement from the bishop of Jerusalem


Why creationism is not the biggest threat to schools



Wednesday, January 7, 2009

101 Goals in 1001 days

So I have decided that I am going to take part in the 101 goals in 1001 days challenge. Now that I have decided that I am going to have to put some thought into what goals I want to achieve. I also need to plan some categories for my goals, to make sure that I get a fair cross section. Currently I am thinking of the following categories:


1) Personal(/Selfish)


2) Personal Development


3) Community Development


4) Faith/Mission/Spirituality


5) Outdoors/Hiking/Travel


6) Relationships


7) Fitness/Healthy Living


If you can think of any more categories, or have some suggestions for some goals then leave them in the comments section.


I think effective goal setting is a useful exercise for everyone, no matter your personality type. Obviously goal orientated people are more naturally inclined towards setting goals but they aren't the only ones who will benefit from them. Goals keep us accountable to what matters in our life and achieving things that are going to have lasting impact. I see plenty of people who are extremely busy, but yet achieve very little. They don't achieve much because their action is not directed and is blown here and there by other people's situations, needs and desires.


I came across a good question while researching for 101 goals in 1001 days. It was simply, "will this matter in five years time?" If it will matter, then it is worth investing time and energy into. If it won't matter, then don't worry about it and instead find something that will matter.


So who wants to join me on a 101 goals in 1001 days journey? If we start on the 4th of April then we will finish our journey on the 31st December 2011.


What I read today:




101 goals in 1001 days




Will all of this matter in five years time?



Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Connection with the land

I read today that a steering committee has recommended that all Crown land in Victoria should be opened to Native Title claims by Indigenous groups. If this was to come to fruition (it still has to become legislation and pass the parliament) it would be a great step forward for Reconciliation in this state.


A number of years ago I was able to walk with the Indigenous custodian of Wilsons Promontory. He spoke of the Aboriginal heritage of that place and their connection to the land in that place. Anyone who has ever been to the Prom recognises that it is a spiritual place. That walk, more than anything else, has shown me the connection that our Indigenous people have with this land. It also showed me the lack of connection that we non-indigenous people have with the land.


While some indigenous cultural practices might change our use of the land (not climbing Uluru for example) I think that this would be for the best. For too long we have tried to live in Australia as if we lived in England. We steal water from the rivers to irrigate farmland to grow and graze food and animals from Europe.


The article currently highlights a problem with the current system. Indigenous groups currently have to show a continuous link to the land they wish to claim under Native Title. In Victoria most indigenous communities were relocated after colonisation and so have lost that continuous link. It is interesting to realise that I lived for 18 years in Gippsland and was never told once that it was the site of numerous massacres of the Indigenous population. Their disconnection from the land is a direct result of European colonisation.


It is definitely time that we recognised the indigenous communities connection with their land.


What I read today:




Native title reform bid


Isreali troops enter Gaza City



Monday, January 5, 2009

Cultural Change

I have to admit that the inspiration for this post came after reading Gen's post over at the JustSalvos blog.


Twice in the last week I have seen people wearing a 'uniform' for a cultural event. At Sensation (a dance party at Telstradome on NYE) there was some 40,000 people all dressed in white dancing the night away. Today at the SCG was Jane McGrath day, with everyone encouraged to wear pink to support the McGrath Foundation in the fight against Breast cancer.


Gen in her post talks about the ability of Disneyland to 'create a culture', a culture where people don't litter and everyone enjoys themselves. She talked about the ability of culture to shape behaviour.


I on the other hand want to reflect on how culture takes shape. All culture is fluid. From now on the third day of the Sydney Test will be Jane McGrath day and everyone will be encouraged to wear pink. That cultural event is shaped by the tragic loss of a cricketer's wife. A negative event has been transformed into a day to raise awareness and funds in the fight against breast cancer. The fact that Jane McGrath was married to one of Australia's most famous sports person helped her death, as opposed to any other person's battle with cancer, to create a cultural change.


Viral marketing is a form of cultural change. It aims to spread a message like a virus. Word of mouth, create a buzz. When I read the New Testament I see a viral marketing campaign of sorts. There was a message that was spread. It was an alternate culture, but yet was culturally relevant and culturally engaged. I don't think the same can be said of the church today.


How do you want to make a difference in our culture?


What I read today:




Binge culture curses 'lost generation'




Pulp Mill decision a 'dark day for Tasmania'



Friday, January 2, 2009

Questions

Melissa in her comment on my previous post brought up the issue of questioning. I think that a question is perhaps the most powerful tool on this earth.


William Wilberforce asked the question "is it right for human beings to be enslaved by another human?"


Martin Luther King Jnr asked the question "why is my son judged by the colour of his skin and not the content of his character?"


I could go on but I think you get the picture. Questioning of the status quo is what is required to find new directions and challenge stale assumptions. But a question is not always negative. Ask someone what they love about their spouse and you are sure to get a string of positive traits. The question can assist in pointing out the positive in a situation.


Questions can bring us closer to those around us. "How do I fix this broken wheel on my rubbish bin?" There is a level of vulnerability and humility in a question that empowers the person asked to respond.


For me the most influential question that I can remember from a faith perspective was being asked to respond to an article entitled, "Was Jesus gay?" I had to think through my thoughts on homosexuality but more importantly I had to ask some big questions about who I believe Jesus was as a human being. Most Christians I know would shake their head and tut tut at the question, some would even consider it blasphemous. I on the other hand remember fondly the challenge of that specific question on my faith journey. It challenged my assumptions and beliefs. But you know what, they survived. Not only that, they were also strengthened by the asking of a hard question.


What hard questions have you grappled with?


What I read today:


Tim Costello talks about Paris Hilton and the Celebrity syndrom in this article.




Free to Air Networks not serious about multiple channels