small things in the world

Tim Costello (formerly of World Vision, presently of the Centre for Public Christianity): told Christians to calm down and suck it up

A little blunt, but I feel he's not wrong.

Also, he does support freedom of religion - that is, the right of Christian organisations to hire and fire people who don't fall in line with their religious belief systems and the behaviours they feel are in line with that belief.

Mind you, I doubt that anyone will ever lose their job for not tithing to the church, supporting refugees and immigrants, or being openly racist/sexist.

--

The Anglican Parish of Gosford has an excellent dissection of the 'religious freedoms bill' and the legalist lines of 'religious freedom' on it's FB page. It largely concerns the legislation that's presently being prospected for opportunity around the national government.

It makes the agile distinction (frequently lost in panicked gospel-pearl clutching of Christian groups) between the right to say you believe what you believe and the disicplines that can be enacted upon one for saying so in a capacity of authority/power/public example.

--

I think it's important to make the distinction between 'you can't talk about the gospel (or you'll lose your life)' vs. 'you can't talk about the gospel (or you'll get fined and lose your job)'.

A lot of the situations where Christians explicitly aren't supposed to 'proselytise' (frequently, yes, this translates to 'even mentioning Christianity or the bible as their preferred option') are in dynamics where they have professional power/superiority/authority over the person they're proselytising to. eg. teachers, health professionals, coaches, mamagers, counsellors, government employees with the authority to approvel/withhold civic privileges...

The lack of acknowledgement of the power imbalance is very much the same lack that is seen in white people when it comes to racism, or in men when it comes to sexism. The power differential is not explicit but it is there - in the same way that even a simple "hello" can be a threat by a man to a woman. And that's just the professional power imabalance. Now imagine the weight of a thousand years of dominant religiousity that mostly boiled down to WE CAN CONTROL WHETHER YOUR AFTERLIFE IS AS MISERABLE AS YOUR LIFE HERE IS OR IF YOU GET TO GO TO A BETTER PLACE behind you.

It's like a grown man twisting a seven year old child's arm behind her back and saying "but I'm not using any significant force so it shouldn't hurt". The power imbalance is intrinsic and significant and inescapable.

--

With the revelation that Israel Folau's church thinks the doctrine of the trinity is wrong, and believing in it sends you to hell, John Dickson wishes that Christians had treated Izzy's issue with Rugby Australia as a general case of Free Speech, not a special case of The Eeeeeebil World against Christians Saying Anything.

between pious prayer and agnostic activism

It's a bit tough today. It's Sunday, the Lord's Day, and everything's a melange of internal grief and questioning right now.

I live in a conservative stronghold of an electorate. I know most of my friends at church voted LNP (conservative) for "religious freedom" - or the right to say anything biblical and not legally or socially suffer for it - the Israel Folau Stance. My sister says they might care about things like refugee rights on Nauru but they think they can change the mind of the LNP, who've only ever doubled down on internment for asylum seekers.

I trust God and love his people, I just feel like I don't like them much right now. It raises a lot of questions about Christian community and belonging, along with the question whether a single woman of Chinese ancestry, left-leaning and socially progressive is really going to fit in a conservative white family church? No, I don't want your reassurances, Christian friends. Right now, they just feel empty. I like the people - they're very nice people, but very nice people also put the Jews into Dachau, so that's disingenuous. They want to do the right thing by Christians and by the gospel of the Lord, but in suburbia 'the right thing by Christians' means Scripture in schools and not letting people tell children that they don't have to conform to 'male' or 'female' if they feel like they're something else, or educating children about sexualities "too young" (as though every girl being told how pretty she is, while every boy being told how clever he is doesn't emphasise the difference in the way we treat sexuality).

Donating helps in the short-term, but in the long term, it's about policies that the people donating have no power to make, save for at the ballot box, and in letting their representatives know about it in personal emails, written post, or phone calls. And even that stops at the border of our country. Honestly? For most of us it never even gets out of our head - pushed away by busyness or simple selfishness.

Does it feel like all the activists are atheists and agnostics? That the people who care about others who aren't like them are more likely not to be Christians? Along the way, we've learned to give thoughts and prayers and money...but not time and attention and love.

Surely there's somewhere between piously praying and atheistic activism? A middle ground?

Living Next Door To Alice [Part 2]

The second half:

**Australian Better Families – concerned about men’s rights, especially in separated families, re access, child support etc. Lead candidate is a woman, though, who talks about grandparents separated from grandchildren: http://www.newsofthearea.com.au/port-stephens-jewell-drury-stands-for-senate-for-australian-better-families-48660


**Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoridation) Party – Not quite a single-issue party, since they are against both compulsory vaccination and fluoridation of drinking water supplies.


**United Australia Party – this is the party being run (at huge expense) by the abominable Clive Palmer. Enough said. Oh, all right – to spell it out, this is purely a pro-very-big business party, and especially pro-Clive Palmer. In the end, pro-Liberals.


**Democratic Labour Party – This is sneaky! They are reusing an old name, but they aren’t the same party as the old DLP. However, their policies are not dissimilar – socially conservative, strongly anti-left-wing, anti-ALP. Their lead candidate is a western Sydney lawyer (male.)

*Climate Action! Immigration Action! Accountable Politicians! – Micro-party, whose driving idea is to replace parliament with direct online voting on legislation. They don't actually have particular policies for climate or immigration.

**Animal Justice Party – not quite a single-issue party; they have some human-related policies as well as animal ones. Obviously they're against the live-export trade, but also against such things as government support to animal-related farming, the sale of animals as pets (apart from rescue animals) and advertising of animal-derived products like cheese.


**VOTEFLUX.ORG/Upgrade Democracy! – rather like Climate Action! etc, this party wants to abolish parliament in favour of direct online voting on all issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7MCxADcrwE


**Science Party – they want science and technology to lead the way for social and economic development, especially with funding for research (space, driverless cars) and infrastructure (energy, transport, a whole new city to be called Turing). Fairly strong on climate change. Lead candidate Andrea Leong is a microbiologist.


**Citizens Electoral Council – oh, boy! This crowd! Very right-wing. They link to the wild (deceased) Lynton LaRouche, US citizen. Conspiracy theories a specialty – which means sometimes they might get something right, but other times they have theories like “The World Wildlife Fund is a front for Prince Philip to bring in world government” – but it gets wilder yet…


**Sustainable Australia – by sustainable, they include economically environmentally and demographically – they think of themselves as neither right- nor left-wing. They are against a "big Australia" and want reduce immigration, but keep current refugee levels.


**Australian Democrats – the remnants of Don Chipp’s centrist ("keep the bastards honest") party. Policies are middle of the road, and a bit vague in places - very much on the one hand this, but on the other hand that - e.g."strong opposition to any persecution or prejudice... based on race, religion, sexuality or ability" but "stands against any affirmative action bias on the same basis".


**Small Business Party – Not exactly a single issue party, but policies just for a single group – cutting tax, cutting regulations, as far as this will benefit small business. Also advocates (temporarily?) cutting immigration especially to Sydney, on the grounds that there is currently a lack of infrastructure to cope.

Living Next Door To Alice - Pt1 [auspol]

Notes are not mine but from a friend who wonderfully did the research.

It's monstrous! I bet there'll be a character limit on what can go in messages here - so I'll send it in bits, half-a-dozen parties at a time. Here come the first six:

The NSW Senate parties, in the order they appear on the ballot paper

Rise Up Australia Party – led by Danny Nalliah, of Catch the Fire ministries. Particular stated concerns at this election are multiculturalism “kills Australia”, presented as freedom of speech, freedom of religion; you can interpret that pretty well, I think.
(I do like that their lead NSW candidate is a woman who’s a single mother who has worked in a chicken factory. http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/04-maree-nichols/ I wish her well in life, though not electorally.)

Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party – single issue party, as it says on the box. Their lead candidate is a former (deregistered) doctor, who makes his own cannabis oil and treats patients with it, believing strongly in its medical benefits. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/not-guilty-on-all-charges-an-interview-with-medicinal-cannabis-crusader-dr-andrew-katelaris/

Health Australia Party – a close-to-single-issue party, standing for “natural” medicine, and strongly questioning the medical establishment, including the big pharmaceutical companies, shading off into doubts about the value of vaccination, fluoride etc, though there is no unified party voice on these. Their lead candidate is a herbal medicine practitioner. https://www.biomedica.com.au/page/670/get-to-know-your-community-molly-knight

The Liberal Party and the National Party are grouped together as Group D on the ballot paper, which I think is a bit dodgy but there you go. Their lead candidate is a woman (which is one good thing) and disability support campaigner. A Morrison supporter, of course, as is Andrew Bragg, number two on the ticket – he probably got that spot as a reward for dropping out of the Wentworth preselection race. He was strongly pro same-sex marriage. Third spot is the Nationals, and I bet they’re furious at not getting second spot, because it means they might lose that Senate seat. The first two are fairly safe, I’d think.

Pirate Party – small in Australian terms, but linked to international Pirate Parties. Policies are very strongly related to digital society: non-censorship on the internet, privacy protection, net neutrality, loosening copyright restrictions etc. Other policies are generally in the “progressive” camp, including pro-euthanasia, universal basic income especially for artists (“We will support a basic income guarantee which provides universal support to artists. ”) etc. They are a very secular group, to the extent of being anti-religion, but curiously align with Rise Up Australia in calling for freedom of speech, including what is seen as “hate speech”. (“Advocates of censorship make a fundamental error in assuming that hateful speech is a force which only censorship can defeat.”) Lead candidate is a broadcaster with Radio Skidrow, Marrickville.

Affordable Housing Party – single-issue party with directly related policies: remove negative gearing in investment properties, abolish capital gains discount on housing sales, increase Newstart allowance, restrict overseas housing buyers, tax unoccupied properties. Lead candidate is ex-Greens and formerly with the Sydney Star Observer (a newspaper I don’t know, myself.)

The Greens – multi-issue party, with strong emphasis on the environment, obv – also generally in the “progressive” camp. Great to see how they’ve shifted from minor party to real contender, fielding six candidates – of course if they got more than one in, it’d be a remarkable coup, but they’re out there. Lead candidate is Mehreen Faruqi, first female Muslim Senator in Australia. She may be struggling to get back in.

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party - This crowd have done some very adroit renaming – they started as the Shooters and Hunters, then shifted over to being the Shooters and Fishers party (to widen the scope for support, bringing in all those people who like to go fishing on the weekends, and gripe about being limited in their catch sizes) and now are calling themselves Shooters, Fishers and Farmers. It was a clever move, and they have indeed taken votes from the rural sector – votes mostly coming from the National Party base. But what is staying constant? That’s the clue as to what they’re really about - guns.

Australian People’s Party – a bit of a maverick party, on the conservative side with a strong economic-based focus; wants also wants a rise in Newstart and free uni education. Lead candidate stood in the Wentworth by-election, and preferenced Kerryn Phelps way down, vs (for example) Katter’s Australia Party way up.

Labor Party – well, you know this lot already! Lead candidates are Tony Sheldon (speaks about wages, sounding the alarm on the gig economy, ex-Transport Workers Union – right wing of ALP) Tim Ayres (ex-AMWU, left wing of ALP). In third (unlikely to get up) place – Jason Yat-Sen Li, who ran for the Senate about twenty years ago, for the pro-multicultural Unity Party. This group includes Country Labor, who therefore take last place on the ticket and have an even worse chance of getting up.

Socialist Alliance – Left-wing, revolutionary socialist, the group who put out the newspapers Green Left Weekly and Resistance. Their lead candidate is co-editor of the latter. Very quick to jump to the most left position of any debate, and to judge causes quickly.

The Together Party – Only standing in NSW, this is a micro-party – they want protection for the ABC, no privatisation of public services and a national Independent Commission Against Corruption. It’s mostly Mark Swivel, their lead candidate – lawyer, occasional author and performer. He has been involved in legal aid and microfinance for developing countries.


**Australian Conservatives – set up by Cory Bernardi, who left the Liberals because they were too left-wing. Pro free-market, anti-Paris climate change agreement, anti-UN convention on refugees, etc. When I said there were people who would never get my vote…


**Great Australian Party – set up by Rod Cullerton, formerly of One Nation, but left to make his own career not resiling from former positions but now specialising in opposing income tax. Right-wing, goes without saying.


**FRASER ANNING’S CONSERVATIVE NATIONAL PARTY – Oh, boy, all of these in a row! Clever move to register the name all in capitals – it might get them a bit more attention, but in general – this is just one more astonishingly hate-filled party. Neonazi and plainly racist links.


**Christian Democratic Party – Old-school social conservative – do you know Fred Nile? This is his team. Anti-abortion, generally socially conservative.


**Independents for Climate Action Now - newly-founded hopeful party, declaring that climate change is a problem beyond left- or right-wing politics, and can be tackled by various policies. https://i-c-a-n.com.au/
Their lead candidate is an Anglican priest who’s been active against offshore detention policies, but the focus of the party is purely on environment/climate change.


**Liberal Democrats – Rightwing. One of their founders was David Leyjonhelm, who told Sarah Hanson-Young to “stop shagging men” in response to her speech in parliament re: rape. His former chief of staff is now their lead candidate, and is calling for cutting taxes and “ending the nanny state”.

**Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – I think you know this crowd already!


**The Women’s Party – not exactly a single-issue party, because they want action on domestic violence as well as more representation of women in parliament and wage inequality.


**Seniors United Party of Australia – anti-Labor on the franking credits reform, wants more funding for aged care.


**Socialist Equality Party – Far left, Trotskyist, and in Australian terms "Spartacist". Strong on social inequality, re-emergence of fascism. Want abolition of capitalism, and installation of socialist governments. Lead candidate is a longterm activist who has published lots of analysis such as this about Anzac Day - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/04/awar-m04.html


**Australian Workers Party – leftist, unionist, wants essential services in public not private hands. Policies a little undeveloped, but they pledge to decide every issue on whether something will "benefit the working people of this nation".

Part 2

Paul and the people

A while back, I posted a comment in the feed of an Australian Christian author whose views I respect, and who comes down more on the ‘practical, out-there love’ side of things than the ‘theologically correct’ side. The comment was about how the Apostle Paul challenged the people around him with the news of Jesus Christ, but he did so either in a relational context (working among, living among, breaking bread with), or else in a context that was geared for actual philosophical debate and the exchange of ideas(such as the Areopagus).

He didn’t run into the temples or places of worship and desecrate them.

He didn’t stand at the roadside and bellow ‘you are all sinners!’

Paul argued with people, yes, but he did so with his life as backup – for weeks, perhaps months, perhaps years on end. Mending sails, sitting by the wharves, doubtless chatting with people who had questions, teaching and preaching when he could, seizing moments in the synagogues when he could persuade the leaders to listen to him. You can imagine him with Jesus’ love and mercy and grace weighing on him every moment, but knowing that he couldn’t just lecture someone about ‘sin’ (a concept probably as foreign to the ancients as it tends to be in our modern world) because he knew all the theology and doctrine but it took the divine revelation of the risen Christ to kick him out of doctrine and into the living, loving faith.

In the last month, there was a guy (an American) who stepped onto a train in Sydney and started preaching about the evils of abortion. He didn't have a relationship with anyone on that train. He didn't know anything about any of those people. He just walked in and started preaching and claimed he was doing it out of 'love' for these people. No, he wasn't. He was doing it out of love for himself and the sound of his voice.

In the last two weeks, Israel Folau - a rugby league player who'd already been cautioned about expression hardline views about homosexuality and agreed to keep his mouth shut on his beliefs - spouted off the bible verse about "neither idolators nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor liars...will enter the kingdom of God". Which went down about as well as one would expect given that he'd already been cautioned about it and agreed not to stir the pot again.

I am minded of James: Let your yes mean yes, and your no, no.

A lot of modern Christians are on board with public expressions of Christianity and are outraged when they're not received as well as we'd like.

I'm not convinced we've given the public any reason to like us - or, more correctly, we've given the public no reason to listen to us. Which is to say, we've shown them no real expression of love or concern for their concerns - not the way Paul did, not the way Jesus did. We've given them no reason to listen to us; no reason to care if what we say is the truth. And maybe that's post-modernism having it's wicked way with our minds, but it's also a relational thing. We will listen to things we disagree with from people we like, who we feel have our feelings and best interests in mind, where we wouldn't take it from a stranger.

"What the church wants" is frequently held to be irrelevant these days; the immediate response from Christians tends to be "but we shouldn't just give way to the world and its view!" No, we shouldn't. But if the people who are part of 'the world' don't feel we love them, care about them, have any thought or concern for the thoughts or concerns that plague them, then why would they bother listening to us, even if we think we have the best news in the world?

I suspect the people Paul wrote letters to and preached to knew how much he cared for them. Sure and the people Jesus healed knew he saw them as people, not just as converts to the good news.

Do we see people as people first? Do I?

a tenth of rue and dill and rosemary...[old post from drafts]

Two instagram posts by Jen Hatmaker:

Last night, a post of
1. exasperation and frustration

Me, facing the full moon tonight, talking to God: “Jesus, I am wild about you and I really just want to love your people, but I fully hate at least half of them.” So that is where I am this evening. I hope Jesus is #blessed by my capacity.

followed by this morning's post:

2. thankfulness for mercy:

His mercies are new every morning!
.
THANK GOD, omg (literally). New day. New chance. New start. New slate. Yesterday is over. (Again, THANK GOD.)

Needless to say a lot of the responses to post #1 were rebuking her for using the word 'hate'.

I wonder how many of them think that taking kids away from their parents is justified. Because crossing the border is 'breaking the law'.

More Than Conquerers

What do we do when we're no longer the big dogs?

When we're losing the culture wars?

When church attendance is falling?

When people no longer believe in God?

What do we do when we're no longer the triumphant, dominant paradigm in the world - Christian values, a churched public, a Christian humanist society?

It's a question facing Christians in the west as 'human rights' become less anchored in the imago dei and more anchored in 'this is just the way that it should be'. Which is a problem all its own, but it's not going away. The Christians of the last 500 years built a fairer world, acknowledging not only spiritual grace and faith in the resurrection, but also the grace of God from which derives both 'this world' justice and mercy (instead of confining it to the next) and fought to end slavery, fought to give suffrage, fought to make things fairer for everyone, even if they couldn't make all men (and women) equal.

And yes, they failed along the way. Some of them pretty spectacularly. For those failures, we repent and ask forgiveness, we try to make amends, and where we can't, we press on, resolving to do better.

There's a big focus on 'winning' these days - well, in the last thirty years, actually. It's not enough to be quietly the people of God, beavering away. No, we must be CONQUERERS. We must subdue the earth and everything in it! It is our DESTINY to be the rulers of the Earth!

It kind of ties into that post I made a while back about 'good Christian governance' and what we think of as a 'good Christian leader in a secular world'.