Howard vs. Rudd: the webcast

This year Australia goes to the polls to elect a new federal government. Whichever party wins the most seats can form government, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister. John Howard has been Australia's Prime Minister for 11 years as leader of the Liberals, and Labor leader Kevin Rudd is challenging him.

On Thursday night the Australian Christian Lobby organised a live webcast of the two leaders speaking to churches. Many churches across Australia signed up to watch this event. I attended the webcast at a local congregation.

Mr. Howard spoke first, then received questions from church leaders in the audience. Mr. Rudd's presentation followed the same format. Both leaders began their speeches with a commendation of Australia's Christian heritage. Both also professed to hold a Christian faith.

As a former political science student, I was very interested to note the way that the two leaders framed their speeches to focus upon their key concerns. They spoke partly to their audience specifically, but also treated the webcast as another opportunity to press home their platforms on issues such as the economy and workplace reform. It was also very interesting to listen to each leader for 20 minutes or more, as usually we hear only soundbites on the news.

In my opinion, Mr. Howard made more effort to justify his policies and practises to the Christian public, and respond to complaints against his party. Especially in the area of welfare and the workplace, Mr. Howard sought to demonstrate that he does care for the underprivileged.

Mr. Howard also made more effort to explain the way his faith impacts upon his decisions, and pointed out that his party includes many strong Christians. He mentioned that he and many other members of the Liberal party voted conservatively on issues such as stem cell research.

Mr. Rudd's speech was much more humorous! He made serveral jokes about parts of his speech being pitched to various Christian denominations. For example, he stated that including a quote from John Wesley was "a pitch for hte Methodist vote". I enjoyed Mr. Rudd's humour.

Mr. Rudd also did a good job of focusing on some alternative issues to those Mr. Howard promoted as important. For example, he spoke about the effects of the Iraq war upon the Christian minority in that country. He also emphasised the importance of helping refugees. Both these issues pull my heart strings, and I am sure they have a similar effect on many other Christians.

During the question time, church leaders asked Mr. Rudd questions that were very relevant to the past history of the Labor party and the future of the country. For example, his stance on anti-vilification laws.

However, I was disappointed that no one asked Mr. Rudd for his personal stance on issues of life and death. His record on issues related to abortion is poor, and it would have been worthwhile to ensure that voters were aware of this.

Overall, the "a word" (abortion) was not mentioned in the entire webcast. This shows the low priority placed upon this issue in Australia, including in church denominations, in comparison to the high priority that is placed upon it in the USA.

In conclusion, this webcast provides much for Australian Christians to be grateful about. It is wonderful that we have leaders in both major parties who are willing to profess faith in Christ, speak to Christians, and acknowledge the right of Christians to be involved in public life.

It is also excellent that Christians are becoming more politically aware and wanting to vote in accordance with God's will. One of my favourite parts of attending the webcast was the break in the middle of it, where we prayed together. Many churches across the nation did the same. I am certain that this was the most powerful part of the evening. God will surely work, and reveal to us what we need to know about our leaders, in response to our prayers.

Read more...

Christ and Culture

In his book Christ and Culture (1951) H. Richard Neibuhr identified five different ways in which Christians have understood the relationship of the Christian faith to culture.

1. Christ Against (Opposes) Culture – The Separatist Approach

• Reject culture as ungodly and separate themselves from it.
• Sharp distinction is drawn between the world and the Kingdom of God.
• Christ is thought to be opposed to the customs of the society in which the Christian lives

2. Christ of Culture – The Identificational Approach

• Identify the best fruits of non-Christian culture as being an expression of Christ.
• Christ is in agreement with culture.
• For example, 19th Century Liberal Protestants believed the Kingdom of God was found in the cultures of the world.

3. Christ Flanks Culture – The Co-Existence Approach

• The Christian is called to live in this world, yet is a member of the Kingdom of God. These loyalties co-exist in parallel and cannot be reconciled.
• Antithesis between the world and the Kingdom of God, yet both are equally important and valid fields of Christian service.
• Martin Luther developed a doctrine of “two Kingdoms”.

4. Christ Above (Crowns) Culture – The Hierarchical Approach

• Christ completes (or crowns) the natural order
• The superior order of grace is added to the inferior order of nature. Grace is added without significantly altering the world, which has a separate existence.
• The church is God’s institution on earth. It brings God’s blessing by mediating his grace and sanctifying the natural order.
• Associated with Roman Catholicism.

5. Christ Restores Culture - The Transformational Approach

This is the approach I most identify with, and I wrote about it in my post about my education course.

It is good to think through these different ideas about how we are to live in and relate to the world. Doing so can help you to understand where others are coming from when you discuss issues with them.

Read more...

The babies

I have not posted any pictures of the little men in my life for a long time! Here are the twins with their parents at my brother's engagement party.


Here I am with my second favourite boys . . .


They are more beautiful than ever, I think! Everytime I see them I can't help wondering what they will be like when they are grown. Will they be serving the Lord? Everytime I see them, I pray that they will! I often babysit. Recently Dave was visiting from Melbourne and he came with me. It was wonderful to pray aloud together for the boys. Those dimpled hands will someday be doing a lot . . . for good or for evil. The twins already seem big, and they won't be babies for much longer!

Read more...

Kevin Rudd and Therese Rein

2007 is a Federal election year in Australia. At the moment the Liberal Party holds power. For the information of international readers, John Howard is the Prime Minister. The opposition leader, who is aiming to win government, is Kevin Rudd of the Labor party.

One of Kevin Rudd's central platforms has been the treatment of workers. This is a traditional Labor party focus. Recently it emerged that Mr. Rudd's wife Therese Rein had underpaid some of her workers. This embarassment resulted in Ms. Rein selling her multimillion-dollar business.

In the media presentations that accompanied these events, Rudd attempted to distance himself from his wife's business. He stated that he and Therese led separate lives apart from sharing their children, cat and dog.

It is natural that Rudd would attempt to demonstrate the fact that he was not responsible for his wife's business. However, I thought his statements reflected one of the sad elements of modern marriage in a post-industrial world. Husbands and wives no longer work together. Their everyday lives are usually separate.

This situation means that it is harder for husbands to fulfill the responsibilities God has given them, as those ultimately accountable for helping their wives to live according to God's word (see Ephesians 5). It also makes it harder for wives to fulfill their role as helpers to their husbands. Rather than helping their husbands with their work, wives are often doing a completely separate type of work that takes up most of their time.

Kevin Rudd also made a statement that was telling in regard to his views of the role of women.

"This is the age of the professional women who run their own companies, who have their own lives and are not simply appendages of middle-aged men," Mr. Rudd said.

I admire the amazing forbearance, initiative and talent Therese Rein must have had to build her company from scratch. I have read several books on starting a business, and all these lead me to the conclusion that it is very hard work! I am not arguing that it is wrong for women to start businesses.

I would, however, argue that a wife's main task is to help her husband in his work (Genesis 2). Whatever she chooses to do should not detract from this primary role. Her aim should not be to further her reputation, but to further his. See the Proverbs 31 Woman, who took care of her household and business so that her husband could lead and be known in the gates. As she did this, she too was recognised. Her recognition, however, came from her faithfulness to her family.

It is offensive to suggest, as Kevin Rudd does, that women who choose to devote themselves to furthering their husbands' goals are "simply appendages of middle-aged men". His comment appears to contradict his statement that he respects the arrangements between Prime Minister John Howard and his wife.

Janette Howard's goal has been to create a strong family life. In The Australian Women's Weekly, August 2004, she stated that she makes no apology for taking a back seat in public life.

"I see my role as a supporting one, not leading the charge", she said.

Janette does not have many accomplishements that can be listed to her own name. She is only widely known because she is the Prime Minster's wife. Yet this does not make her life any less worthwhile, or reduce her to the value of an "appendage".

For me, the discrepancy between Mr. Rudd's views and biblical ideas raised again the issue of his professed Chrisitan commitment. I do not think any judgements should be made on the basis of this latest controversy. Many godly people I know have not thought much about the roles of men and women, and make unfortunate comments.

There are, however, other sources that may be of assistance in evaluating Mr. Rudd's commitment to Christian values. In a Sunday profile from early last year, Kevin Rudd states that he attends an Anglican church but does not care at all for denominationalism and has not forsaken his Catholic background. He also states that he voted for the abortion drug RU486.

For me, this interview was enough to demonstrate that Rudd does not have an evangelical, Bible based Christian faith. He is unlikely to advocate the kind of values I would like to see Australian legislation and policy relect.

For more information about the recent political controversy surrounding Rudd and Rein, see this Sydney Morning Herald article.

Read more...

Cultures

I enjoyed the diversity of cultures in South Africa. In Tasmania the vast majority of people are of English or European descent, and I rarely hear anyone speak a language other than English. In South Africa there are many official languages, and I often heard people speaking languages I did not understand. When I went to the ATM, I had to choose which language I wanted to read during my transaction. There were about 10 to choose from! The major cultural/racial groups that I learnt about were Indian, English, Afrikaans, and Zulu*.

Durban has a large Indian population, and I enjoyed looking at their distinctive fabrics when I visited a market.

White people in South Africa generally fall into two cultural groups - English and Afrikaans. English people descend from English settlers, and Afrikaans people descend from Dutch settlers. I am sure there are many similarities between them, but there are also differences. Their accents are different, for example. Dave's ancestry is English. Many South Africans speak Afrikaans, including Dave. I have learnt a few words, which I say very poorly! The main word I am familiar with is "skat" which is pronounced "skut". It means treasure.

Dave also speaks some Zulu. This proved a real blessing when we visited a Zulu village called DumaZulu. At the start of our tour a man spoke to us rapidly in Zulu and expected us to respond in his launguage! I was grateful to have Dave to tell me what to say! This village shows the way Zulu people once lived.


We were treated to some vigorous dancing and singing!



The Zulu people are a major tribal group. I visited Zululand, so this is the tribal group I had most contact with. However, there are several other major groups within South Africa. There are also many black refugees from neighbouring countries. I discovered that if you refer to someone as "African" people assume you mean a black person. I found this interesting considering the fact that everyone in South Africa lives on the African continent and could therefore be described as African! People who are not black do not refer to themselves as African. They describe themselves as South African. When I told a Zulu man that my boyfriend was African, I think he thought I had sight problems :).

I admire the way African women balance pots on their heads.



Visiting this village and being confronted with another culture made me more aware of the challenges missionaries must face. It was difficult for me to be spoken to in a foreign language by a person dressed in an unusual way, and I knew I was going on a tour! Imagine if I had been faced with this and I had to work out how to live amongst these people for years with little outside support.

The week after we visited Dumazulu, we enjoyed a monument to the success of another culture. The Voortrekker Monument is in Pretoria, near Johannesburg. It commemerates the Dutch settlers trek from the Cape to the interior of South Africa.


There are many beautiful carvings on the walls inside the building, showing events in the trek. This one shows the English settlers giving the Dutch people who were about to set out a Bible. This Bible and many others are on display in the museum.


There is a strong focus upon the achievements of women. There is a long tapestry which pictures aspects of this, as well as a large statue outside the monument and many carvings such as the one pictured above.

It was interesting to visit this monument after the Zulu village, because it featured the conflict of the Dutch settlers with the Zulus. The stone carvings of these events seemed much more alive since we had recently seen Zulu people dressed in a similar way.

Our experiences led us into several discussions about race and culture. While it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, it is not wrong to seek to evaluate cultures from a Biblical perspective. One race is not inately better than another, but some cultures are more conformed to a Christian worldview than others are. The Zulu culture still encourages polygamy, which is not God's plan for humanity. The Afrikaans culture has historically oppressed other groups, and this is also a perversion of God's plan. These two examples illustrate that most cultural groups have areas where they need to be transformed through an understanding of the gospel and of the fullness of God's word to us. If one culture is much more conformed to God's word than another, it can justly be said to be a better culture.

*As I write about the cultural groups I encountered, I keep having an uneasy feeling that I am going to get an email from a South African who will tell me I am wrong. I am sure I do have much to learn and I am open to any correction of my facts!

Read more...

Taking note of history

History must be our deliverer not only from the undue influence of other times, but from the undue influence of our own, from the tyranny of the environment and the pressure of the air we breath. Lord Acton.

I have loved this quote for a long time. The first part reminds me of our tendancy to repeat the mistakes of other times. Knowing history can help us not to do this, and in doing so it can deliver us from the undue influence of these times. As we study history, we can see the reasons why people did things and the way we could be tempted to do the same things. The study of history can also enable us to see how things we take for granted now are not the "way things have always been", they are a product of historical events. In this way, seeing how current situations are a product of history can liberate us to challenge "the way things are" are cast off historical influences that are not good. This ties in with the meaning of the second part of the quote.

I love the second part of the quote even more than the first. I often realise how much my own time and environment influence me. To some extent this is inevitable. However, it is important to minimise how much we allow the time we live in to dictate our choices. I often feel disturbed when I hear Christians speak harshly against their brethren who lived in other times and made mistakes. I feel disturbed because I think their comments are short-sighted and often show a lack of awareness of how we do the same thing.

For example, the way Christians treated Australian indigenous people was at times less than ideal and at times plainly abusive. I think we should condemn without hesitation the things that were done. However, that is different to condeming the people who did them and saying that these people could not have been Christians. In cases of clear abuse which were not repented of, it is fair to question the person's salvation. We are told to evaluate the fruit of someone's profession, and we can make some judgements based upon this. However, in many cases what the Christians did came out of a mistaken attempts to help aboriginal people and bring the gospel to them. Many of their mistaken attempts could have been averted if they had a better understanding of scripture and they had taken the trouble to apply the Bible instead of the wisdom of their times. It is worthwhile to note this. However, I am disturbed when people condemn these Christians while they continue to assume that it is fine to go along with current wisdom.

As Greg Price wrote in his article "Taking moral equivalence to an extreme" (The Australian November 2, 2006), it is easy to patronise and condemn those who acted in the past. He wrote about the "stolen generation" of aboriginal children who were removed from their parents (sometimes by Christians). This was done in an attempt to help them, and it was often done on a racist basis. "Patronising the past also neatly shifts the spotlight. Perhaps Australians of the '40s or '50s should not have removed children from their communities. But is the present hands-off approach any better? Where's the moral advantage in leaving Aboriginal children in communities degrated by alcoholish, petrol sniffing, domestic violence, and sexual abuse? It's much easier to apologise for something that happened 50 years ago than come up with a policy solution to an existing problem."

Price's last sentence says exactly what I feel. It is easy to stand on the sidelinse and criticise people who tried their hardest to act rightly. It is much harder to consider how we should evaluate the times in which we live and how we can solve current problems. Today I read Scott Brown on this topic, in a post that exposes the way we adopt worldly methods to reach youth and therefore we fail. He also did a post on Al Mohler's wisdom on the education of children. Mohler says in part: “I don't think God calls upon Christian parents to put our children in the schools as guinea pigs as salt and light. I'll be honest. I just don't think that at all is the biblical vision. The public schools are an innovation. They are not a fact of nature."

I can think of lots of other areas where what is currently popular or expedient plays a large part in the decisions of Christians. One example is the way Christian couples choose to use hormonal birth control even if they know the facts about how it can act to terminate human life, because it is easiest and they don't want children right now. It is easy to go with the flow and assume that it is fine to do whatever seems expedient or current without evaluating what the Bible has to say. I hope that I extend grace to other Christians who make decisions based on the times in which they live, or who apply the Bible differently to how I do. I also want to extend the same grace to those who lived long before me.

However, in the midst of praying for a gracious attitude I also remind myself that history can be "our deliverer not only from the undue influence of other times, but from the undue influence of our own, from the tyranny of the environment and the pressure of the air we breath." I don't want to blunder along, with the time I live in dictating my decisions. Whenever I think about Christians in the past, I do not grimace as much at their mistakes as I do at my own capacity to buy into the type of thinking that created their mistakes. I know there must be many areas where I do adopt unbiblical ways of thinking. As I learn more about history, I hope that I can see that the way things are done now is often not the only way or the best way. I can also gain a vision for how to live differently. Christians in the past often understood and applied scripture better than we do today, and I can learn from that. God has placed each of us in the time in which we live. By God's grace, I hope to be granted insight on how to live in the most biblical way possible to achieve his purposes in this time.

21 November - I thought I'd quickly note some of the other things that I believe we need to think about in terms of the Bible rather than current thinking: the roles of men and women, methods of poverty relief, illegitimacy, business practices, entertainment and amusement choices, consumerism, and the law. I would enjoy hearing from readers who can share the issues they have thought about in relation to the difference between current practices and biblical thinking.

Read more...

I'd rather live here

On my pink town post, Keziah provided a picture of a much nicer town painting idea in multicoloured hues. Keziah often uses great pictures on her blog. Thanks for posting the link to this site, Keziah. I still think the government should let people paint their properties whatever colour they like though! I am sure that most of my readers agree :)!

Read more...

A pink town

Monday's The Australian featured a tiny story in the "Wierd World" section that I thought my blog readers would enjoy. I especially thought of those of you who complained so much when my blog was pink. This story should make you very grateful you don't live in Aurangabad, India. Here is the story of that town:

In a bid to deter crime, authorities have painted the town pink. Aurangabad is the centre of a Maoist insurgency and the town's leaders hope that by painting all buildings bright pink, they will lift morale among the residents. The town's subdivision officer, Arvind Kumar Singh, said: "What better colour than pink, which symbolises good mood, soothing sight and good feelings." All municipal buildings have been painted, and about 80 per cent of private homes. The remainder are expected to be completed this week.

Arvind Kumar Singh knows how to describe the benefits of pink. If only more people agreed with him :). I doubt this town painting effort will reduce crime. It is more likely to make those who hate pink feel like committing crime. Graffiti comes to mind.

Read more...

Kids, social problems, and government control

The Australian media often features articles about the growing obesity problem amongst children. There are currently many discussions happening as to whether or not the government should implement such measures as advertising restrictions for fast food, and a junk food tax. Patricia Edgar, in her article "Nothing in it for Tomorrow's citizens" (The Australian, Thursday September 21, 2006), wrote that advertising should be restricted. According to Edgar, "The number of overweight people on the planet - more than one billion - exceeds the number of malnourished".

Yet this was not the central focus of Edgar's article. Rather, she lamented the lack of quality children's TV programs. "Today children spend more time with machines than with their parents." Edgar's concern is that what is shown to children promotes a culture of materialism. "Brands are ubiquitous and the fight to resist is overwhelmind for parents. We feed our kids toxic food. We have squandered TV's capacity to teach, inform and inspire."

Edgar's assessment of children's media is certainly one I would echo. Due to my babysitting and teaching experiences, I am increasingly aware that the media marketed to children is problematic. One of my main pet hates is the Bratz craze. Bratz dolls are heavily made up and scantily clad. There are movies featuring them, and merchandise ranging from shoes to pencil cases. One child I teach, age 6, seems to have Bratz everything. Images of purity and gracious femininity have been overtaken by sensuality and rebellion. This is just one example.

While I agree that children's media consumption is a concern, I am less impressed with Edgar's solution: government intervention and better early childhood education. "A national strategy for children must include the media." Such a conclusion assumes that the government is responsible for what parent's allow their children to watch on TV, or what parents choose to buy their children at the shopping mall. I believe that parents are responsible, not governments.

God gives the responsiblity for children's education to parents. All stories, including those told on TV, are "education". The Bible is full of stories, indicating the importance God places upon them. There is no such thing as "just a story". The tales the TV spins hour after hour, whether in advertising or programs, are not neutral. Parents are responsible for what type of stories they allow their children to be told.

One reason I think parents resist fulfilling their responsibilities properly, is a fear that their children will be "weird" if they are not soaked in popular culture. Christian parents at least, seeing the usual rebellious and unhappy children of the world, should want their children to be weird. If I have children, I want them to relate well to others and the world. Today, success in that goal would make them very weird.

Parents, even those who are not believers, can and should choose to fill their children's lives with stories that are good. Stories around the dinner table that impart family history and identity. Stories of nature and beauty, and of the character and virtues that they want their children to have. As an aunt, I also count myself responsible to tell good stories. Tales that inspire children to live beautiful lives.

If parents will not choose to fill their children's lives with stories that will infuse their lives with hope and purpose, no one else can fill that gap. The government can make what regulations it likes. The child care centers can be encouraged to implement, as Edgar suggests, "quality early childhood programs that employ drama, music, and information to enrich the lives of children". None of that can ever compare with the pattern God gives us in the Bible: parents walking beside their children, and telling them the stories they need to know.

Read more...

God and Government

Currently the Australian Democrats, a minority political party in Australia, are running a survey titled God and Government. Jonathan Field wrote this response, in which he makes some good points about politics and Christianity. I asked if I could use it as a guest post, and he agreed. Thanks Jonathan! I know Jonathan mainly through the internet, but we have met once! He lives in Melbourne, Victoria.

I just got back from the USA where I studied the separation of church and state (amongst other things). Most of the "founding fathers" of the USA were Christians who unashamedly used their Christian perspective to shape their newborn nation's laws. These are the same people who had already decided there would be a "separation of church and state". In other words, whatever they _did_ mean by "separation of church and state", they did _not_ mean that politicians should divorce themselves from their personal religions beliefs. In fact, they _expected_ and _intended_ that parliamentarians would vote according to conscience/religion at times, and they expected and intended that the American people would choose, by their vote, which set of philosophies/beliefs would make their laws.

In Australia, MPs should make whatever laws they believe are best for our nation. Whatever their religious or philosophical persuasions, MPs should seek the betterment of the people of our country. An MP who is convinced by his religious beliefs that one law or another is bad for the people of our great land, should vote against such a law.

The people of Australia are responsible for keeping the MPs in check. We the citizens cast the votes that determine which philosophies dominate parliament. If we strongly disagree with an MP's agenda, we vote for another candidate who seems more suitable.

If enough Australians vote for enough MPs of similar philosophy/religion, that philosophy/religion will increasingly find expression in the laws of the land.

If enough Australians voted in enough MPs with some weird philosophy - e.g. that all persons born on 29th February are dangerous and must be executed - then, to the detriment of our nation, that bodgy philosophy would eventually find itself enshrined in law, and the death of innocents would ensue. In a purely democratic state, the only protection against such absurdity is the will of the people, reflected in their vote.

In short :

1) MPs should vote as they see best for Australia. If, for example, they have a religious basis for believing that rape is wrong, they should not hesitate to legislate against rape. The fact that their views are shaped by religion is irrelevant. If the Australian public disagree with the laws that an MP's philosophical or religion persuasions promote, they simply vote for another MP.

2) The Australian public should vote for whom they see fit to best lead Australia. They should not do so just because an MP claims to be affiliated with one or another religion. But it will so happen that those with similar religio/philosophical beliefs will have a similar view of what is best for Australia. (Decriminalise rape? Decriminalise cocaine? Allow abortion?) When an Australian citizen finds an MP who's ideas of what's best for Australia are similar to that citizen's own ideas, the citizen should unashamedly and without hesitation vote for that MP. And so on the one hand a voter should not vote for someone just because that person claims to be of the same or similar religion, but on the other hand a voter should not _refrain_ from voting for someone just because they _are_ of the same religion.

Jonathan sent this in as a comment on the survey. Good on you for taking the time, Jonathan! In the email in which his comment was contained, he also added the following:

"there is such a thing as legislation without an underpinning religious philosophy. Humanism is a religion. It's mantra "There is no God but man" sounds suspiciously like Islam's own "There is no God but Allah", and it's dogmatic assertion that "We are scientific - those who disagree are simply unscientific and religious", translated into plain English, is simply the Humanist's way of saying "Ours is the only true religion".

Should MPs divorce themselves from their religious beliefs when legislating? The very idea is absurd. That murder, rape, or child molestation is "wrong" is an inherently religious idea. Whether you claim it to be so because the majority believes it to be so (in which case your God is Man or Mother Nature), or whether you claim it to be so because there is a separate god or gods of some kind - in either case, the ideas are inherently religious, stemming out from one's understanding of the nature of reality and the origin and purpose of the universe generally and of humankind specifically.

We need to raise our voices more strategically, more frequently, more voluminously, and help reshape the philosophy of this nation."

Read more...

Time to Vote

On Saturday March 18, an election to determine who will govern Tasmania will be held. Where I live, we go and vote in the tiny hall pictured above. It is a short walk from my home.

In Australia voting is compulsory. Richard Herr, my former political science professor, said this is undemocratic. I agree. Forcing individuals to vote forces them to make decisions they may be uninformed about. I only want to vote if I can do so in good conscience, knowing that the candidate I am supporting does represent my values in key areas. Thankfully, the Australian Christian Lobby does find out and provide voters with details of candidate's positions.

Voting for the most “conservative” party is not an answer. In Australia, the conservative party (Liberal) controls both houses of the Federal government. However, a law was recently passed to remove restrictions on the importation of the abortion drug RU486. It is essential to find out what individual candidates believe on matters like abortion, because party lines usually allow a conscience vote.

Most people vote for the party that promises to do more about education, or health, or the environment. There is a strong tendency to blame the government for many things, and ask them to fix them. As the government is handed more and more responsibility, they are also given more authority. A booklet I was required to study to work at the school where I am employed says: “Responsibility and authority are interrelated and must be kept in balance. The weight of responsibility should be equal to authority. For example, when parents turn the responsibility for training their children over to the state, they also turn over a measure of their authority.”

To me, the things people often focus on are far less important than the matters the Bible directly says the government should be involved in. To often, these things are neglected while the government takes on responsibilities and authority that should remain with church and home. I want to do more study on what tasks God has appointed for government, home, and church. At this stage, I believe the Bible tells us that the central task of government should be to reward good and punish evil.

Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.
Proverbs 14:34

For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Romans 13:4

As John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote, “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only lawbook, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! ... What a Utopia; what a Paradise would this region be!”

Something Doug Phillips said on a Jamestown to Jubilee Faith and Freedom tour CD keeps all this in perspective. He said it is 10,000 times more important to honour your parents than to be politically active. He hopes we will all be politically active, but that is no where near the most important thing. The seemingly small things we choose to do each day in relationship to our families and churches have a much greater impact for eternity.

P.S. I was happy to discover last year that while it is compulsory to turn up to a voting booth, it is possible to legally choose not to vote: put your voting sheet in blank.

Read more...

Midlands Journeying

In the past several weeks I have gone up and down the Midlands highway more ever before, and this afternoon I leave again. On each journey I see this unique hay creation. On my journeys I have been listening to the Vision Forum Faith and Freedom tour CDs. I bought both Jamestown to Jubilee and
Landmarks and Liberty at a half price sale. I have not regretted it! It is really a cheap way to satisfy my passion for American history, when you consider other options (like going on a Faith and Freedom tour in person)! It is exciting to be able to learn about history from a Christian perspective. Topics covered include the significance of Plymouth Rock, the Mayflower journey, Plimoth Plantation, how the Salem Witch Trials resulted from ignoring Biblical law (not from following it), the founding fathers, and the Jamestown settlement. I look forward to my bus trips, despite the pain and discomfort, because I get to listen to these for hours. I will finish them soon, but maybe I could listen to them all again!

Read more...

Gods and Generals

I recently arrived home from my friends the Downes' where I watched a DVD I have wanted to see for two and a half years, since hearing about it while visiting the USA. Gods and Generals fulfilled all the expectations I had of it after hearing others' recommendations.

I have had a fascination with US history since visiting there, and the Civil War particularly interests me. So watching nearly four hours about it was no chore. This movie is tragic in the extreme, but I also found it strangely comforting. The Civil War is deeply complex, and still arouses strong regional loyalties. I have read books and websites about it, and had numerous conversations. While most people assume it was all about slavery, that was not an issue until half way through. Nor are charicatures of southerners as racists and northerners as liberators accurate. General Grant, commander of the Union forces, held slaves throughout the war. Lincoln was a racist who wanted to send all the Africans back to their country. Southern General Robert E. Lee wrote "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests ofthe South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained." Lee had freed his slaves before the war.

The reason I find this movie comforting is not becuase it gives answers to the complexities that underlie the war. It does not, although it does clearly show why both sides fought. Southerners felt strong regional loyalties to their states, believed they had a right to leave the union, and felt it their duty to fight for their "country" which was being invaded. Northerners wanted to preserve the union through forcing the south to remain part of it. Later on, some fought to abolish slavery.

I find this movie comforting becuase it portrays the deep faith of southern commanders in God's will. The war was surely his will, and so was its outcome. The movie focused on southern commander Stonewall Jackson, and his trust in God's providence. He trusted God for the timing and place of his death. My favourite quote is "Duty is ours, the consequences are God's".

I shed only a single tear during the whole movie: in Stonewall Jackson's death scene, where he spoke of crossing the river to be at rest. I trust that some day we will see him there.

Read more...