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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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.