I was a little concerned to read today in the Brisbane times that the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is being described as a breakaway or splinter group in the media.  As an Anglican of somewhat non-liberal tendencies, it’s more than a little annoying.  Actually just generally as a Christian it’s annoying because most people in the press reporting on churches and issues of faith seem to have absolutely no idea about most things.  I’m actually fairly convinced that most of them would have trouble naming more than two differences between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic or even what a Muslim believes other than that infidels should die.  But back to my topic.  The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans seems to be, for all intents and purposes, merely an alliance within the Anglican Church.  And I have, for your enlightenment, even pasted the link to their statement and the section where they say they are not breaking away.

http://acl.asn.au/reference-documents/gafcon-final-statement/

Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

Further reading through their statements (there are some bullet points further down the page of the statement, for those who struggle with large chunks of prose), they aren’t that controversial.  They’re just reaffirming what the Anglican Church believes – the articles of religion, that the church should proselytize those who are not Christian, etc.  Although the big one is that they don’t believe that marriage can be between any one but a man and a woman.  Which is fair enough.  That is in the Bible after all.  One of the big issues that the Anglican church has struggled with of late is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a horrid, weasely, dolt who seems to have no idea what the Bible or even the Anglican Church is and seems to enjoy making flagrantly unchristian statements in the misguided belief that they are popular or modern.  When considering that people are leaving the more liberal Anglican churches in droves, shows that they are neither popular or modern.

So by now some of you will have realized that I am in fact and evangelical.  Mostly.  Whilst I sympathize with the more conservative elements in the church who say we shouldn’t ordain people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and we certainly shouldn’t marry some one to someone of the same sex, I’m not so sure about this not ordaining women as bishops thing.  One of the reasons why I left the Presbyterian church after going there for 11 years, was that they didn’t have a very good perception of women.  They wouldn’t let them be elders, there was one on the committee of management at my church, but she seemed to be there to take the minutes of the meeting, and they certainly wouldn’t let a woman teach in the church.  They made a concession that women were allowed to teach other women and also children, but that’s far from being in any sort of position of power.  They also rather hypocritically sponsored women missionaries who were teaching men in other countries.  I hope that it is because they just hadn’t through about it, rather than they thought that men in foreign countries were lesser than Australians.

Needless to say I went back to the denomination I grew up in.  The church I go to now is still an evangelical church, encouraging out reach (practicing it more than the Presbyterian church) and having a thorough, Bible-based teaching.  It also has a female minister and women get elected to the parish council.  In fact there were women on the committee selecting our new minister who started earlier this year.  Whilst there are still some in the congregation who may thing that this is not ideal, they are far from vocal.  The other reason why I think that some one could not attend an Anglican Church and be opposed to women being in positions of power and leadership, is because of who our figurehead is.  You see the Archbishop of Canterbury is equivalent to the role of Prime Minister in the Australian government (but with significantly less power).  But the head of the church is actually the head of our government – the monarch.  So at the moment our ultimate head of the church is a woman.  Additionally the church was well built up and firmly entrenched, not by Henry VIII, but by his daughter Elizabeth I, who introduced things like the common prayer book.  So I do not support Anglicans who oppose women being in positions of power and authority in the church.  They are hypocrites or do not understand the church, its beliefs, structures and history.

Again, it is a divisive issue in the church, and I doubt the issue will ever be resolved but I don’t think that it can be lumped with other more controversial positions held by the more liberal factions in the church.

For those actually interested I have added a couple of links from Anglican sites and also one from the UK, which is a little more accurate than the ones in Australia.  I’ve also pasted the link to the 39 Articles of Religion, which is what Anglicans believe.  It is written in middle-English so may sound a little old fashioned, which is fair enough as it was written around 400 years ago (I love the use of the term Romish Church!)

Announcement of FOCA

Sydney Anglican Announcement

Guardian Article

What Anglicans Believe – 39 Articles of Religion

As you all know balancing my faith and my more socio-political beliefs can be interesting.  I thought I'd post a link to the Acton lecture held by the CIS.  http://www.cis.org.au/events/acton_lecture.html

It is a lecture relating to Liberty and Faith and I thought the question posed to the speaker this year was one that I would like to reflect on the future and would be interested in hearing others thoughts and comments.  It is, "Must religion be a threat to freedom?" 

I think this is an important issue to consider as well as there is an increasing intollerance of religion on the grounds of reason.  (Which is not reason or logic as those of us who have studied it understand it, but a b@astardised concept invented by scientists looking to increase their intellectual territory into areas beyond their dicipline).

Share on Facebook

As you all know, despite being occassionally "liberal" in my political views, I am a practicing Christian (most of the time).  There are however, a lot of things about Christian "Culture" (rather than the actual belief system) which irks most sensible people.  Myself included.

After I finished high-school I really wanted to work in the media as I was pretty sure I was not going to get into the Architecture courses I'd applied for.  In fact, I was sure I'd get into Arts, but if not faced the prospect of doing science...  at Griffith.  But that's an aside.  I got myself a (voluntary) holiday job at 96.5FM which had just got a permanent broadcasting license.  I was a researcher/writer for the morning DJ.  This may confuse people for a number of reasons - I generally wish death and ill will upon most morning DJ's, 17 year olds are not morning people, even the morning ones and I am prepared to argue that "Focus on the Family" is not particularly Christian as Paul espouses the virtues of being single and Jesus never got married.  For some reason none of this mattered, I was getting to make the magic of radio happen.  I was excited.  But for some reason as time has progressed I have become somewhat adverse to Christian music of the pop variety.  I was left behiend liking All Star United, The W's and if I was in the mood, Jars of Clay.  Whilst my friends moved on to bands which I thought could not play very well, were anything but innovative,  mostly sung in Christian cliche's and largely stuck to genes of music I found to be droaning, boring or irritating, I started disparing and moved from grunge to pop to j-pop to dance.  I felt like something of a pariah when other Christians talked about music, concerts and the radio station if formerly worked for.  I just had, and still have, no idea.  Oh and I forgot to mention that much of it is pretty repetitive.  I have a general rule at church that if we sing a sont the whole way through or even the chours more than three times in a row, I stop singing.  Mostly out of bored, but because I'm about encouraged as I can be from that song (see Col 3.16).

A few weeks ago I decided to give Christian music a chance again.  I would not only get my Prais and Worship sampler, but I would give this Christian Pop stuff another go.  So I purchased Wow 2008 - the Christian equivalent of So Fresh! or a MoS Annual.  This sort of thing would have been out of my price range as a uni student (costing a whole $35) but was about the amount I'd waste on a meal out whilst travelling or a few drinks after work (soon to be a few less drinks thank you Mr Rudd).  I'm up to song 12 of the 17 or so on the first CD.  I've listened to two tracks the whole way through - one reasonable Prise and Worship genre song and the other by a long standing Christian musician, which was a bit whiny but had some decent lyrics.  My hopes are not high for the remaining disc.

One of the things that has bugged me most, beside the ameture musicianship was the high rate of "Jesus is my boyfriend" type music.  The ones that sound like they're sining about a lover rather than their Lord and Saviour.  "I truly love you" or "I want you in my life" is an expression of deep affection, but it's hardly fitting for the image of God in the Bible.  Yes it has a vague Biblical interpretation, but is a far thow from the psalms of David and Solomon or even some of the repetitive stuff Hillsong churns out.  To be fair the songs that Hillsong get theologically correct, if not sung for hours on end whilst clapping and attempting to speak in gibberish (I will not call that speaking in tounges as it is not) then it's kind of alright.  But I'm getting old and liberal as I go on.

But after giving it another go I must say that Christian music will probably irk me for some time.  I think the biggest problem comes from the fact that it is hard to knock people who are passionate and passionate about delivering a meaningful message, but I guess my little rant is not about to change that...

It’s that time of year again.  Love it or hate it, Christmas is well and truly coming.  My fondest memories of my childhood Christmas’ usually revolve around members of my extended family arguing, squabbling, playing petty politics and just generally using the chance to be nasty to each other.  It’s not my favourite time and I usually blame the heat.

Recent years have been a bit more pleasant, although last year I came down with a nasty reaction to a vaccine I found out a week and a half later that I didn’t need after all.  Good times.

This is not before spending a few Christmas’ with Dad, after my parents had split, seeing how the other side do Christmas.  Generally sitting in a hot, uncooled, fibro caravan amongst people who could not hold jobs for a variety of reasons and were not able to rent their own places.  There was a variety of people from women with way too many children that looked like none of them had a common parent, to people who were suffering severely from mental illnesses – often making their situation worse by taking non-prescription medication.  Christmas there was a little sad, as often there was a conspicuous lack of Christmas lunches/dinners, presents and cheer.  It seemed to be another miserable hot day in a suburb out of the thoughts of most Aussies.

This year I come to think of those struggling for a number of reasons, not least because I have done up my own budget for the next two months and wondered how on earth I’m going to get through it without increasing my credit limit.  And I’m on what is considered an average income, with no children and no rent to pay.  I have no idea how the rest of you out there survive!

I went to church tonight (which on reflection may result in another blog entry, but we’ll see) and I noticed that no one had left anything for the parish pantry.  I made a mental note that I should definitely contribute over the next two weeks as if I was struggling, those who relied on the church just to put food on the table would definitely be struggling.  If from week to week you’re living hand to mouth, then I can only imagine how hard it must be to do something special for one of our longest standing cultural celebrations (and religious, but this is secondary to most).  Now that I’ve said it publicly, I’ll have to stick to it as well.  I observed to one of my friends that we would have to make an extra effort and she related her experience working at a church charity organisation (I won’t name it as I’m not sure where she’ll stand but it’s a big one).

This is one of their busiest times of year and have to restrict their Christmas food and toy hampers to only the families they are already working with.  Another charity which is very well know has had to restrict available hampers to only 30/day over two weeks.  This is still almost 500, but not nearly enough to meet demand and people have to line up in the streets very early in the morning to receive them.  The workers in the organisation my friend is at are also working flat out to have everything done in time for Christmas and are having to take calls from people who haven’t replied or had their replies lost for toys and food.  It really is quite sad.  And it’s also disappointing to know that no matter how many people they help, there will always be more.

I’m not sure how many more people there are in distress this year compared to in the past, I just know that on my salary I can not afford to rent let alone buy, and going grocery shopping last weekend for the first time in quite a few months, that I seemed to be spending the same and getting about half the quantity.  Where is every one’s money coming from?

I also know, finances aside, that Christmas can also be a lonely time of year.  Because of all the organisations I’m involved in and my workplace, I have something like 9 more Christmas commitments before the 22^nd (when I can finally put my feet up and rest).  I can only imagine that those already on the outskirts, with little social contact as it is, would be pushed even further to the edges of every one’s lives as our commitments escalate and our time shrinks.  My cousin has been back in Brisbane for almost a week now and I haven’t got to see her yet, and that’s some one that I really like spending time with, not some one I see occasionally and put on the low-priority list.

So in reflection I do want to call you all to action.  To give what you can – after all, if you add one more gift to your list and pass it on to the Salvos or the Smith Family or Lifeline or Mission Australia or the many other charities out there helping people (do you need me to name them, I’m sure you can find them easily enough)?  And if you have time, I’m not going to suggest going to a soup kitchen or meals on wheels just for a day – those organisations actually find ongoing support and commitment more meaningful – but I’m going to recommend that you get in touch with all those people who you normally push to the edges during your busy times and give them a call on Christmas day (not Christmas eve and not Boxing day) and tell them that you’re thinking of them and hope they’re having a great day.  You could even invite them around, but I’m not going to argue for something I just can’t do and would feel hypocritical asking others to do.  But get out there and spread some cheer and use Christmas not to indulge, but to make the world a better place, much in the manner of the person who we’re supposed to remember on the day.

Share on Facebook

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

Last night my minister gave a sermon on the spiritual blessings which Christians receive (in contrast to physical blessings, which we don't often receive) and he started by talking about how blessings and curses were a big thing not just at the time when Paul was writing to the Ephesians (where the above quote comes from) but through most of the Bible. 

When the descendants of Jacob (grandson of Abraham also known as Israel) first conquered and entered the land which was to become Israel.  Two groups yelled out from the mountains, one cursing those who did wrong (like moving boundary markers on property etc) and the other called out blessings.  Also the people who Paul was writing to believed very vehemently in blessings and curses though their own Gods.  One of the fellows in our congregation commented afterwards that this is still quite common in many Asian cultures.

Blessings and curses don't feature too much in our culture at the moment and I half wondered if it's about how we treat our words.  If we can bless (or rather praise) some one or force ill will on them through a curse, then our words are important and carry weight and authority.  They need to be listened to and treated accordingly.  However this sort of thing is pretty much regarded as superstition or can be treated as co-incidence if something really does happen to some one.  We can't really measure the effects of our words and I don't know if there are many people in Australia today who would regard mere words as spiritually significant.

I half wonder if the lack of spirituality in our culture does lead us to treat our words, sayings and language as cheap.  How many people do each of us know, whose words we can wholeheartedly trust and put weight in?

It's yet to be launched, but the Pressy Church in Qld has launched a page for Women's ministries, so feel free to have a looksee if it takes your fancy.

http://www.womensministries.pcq.org.au/

I don't have a lot of time to be involved with my church because of work and travel, but I've decided to put my hand up to be on the parish council this year.  I see it as a means to support and encourage others who are better equipped with time.  The AGM is on the 24th.  I've also put my hand up for auditor which is a role that is a bit more difficult to fill and I may actually get.

But if any one out there reading this is the praying kind, I would love your prayers that I can get involved in my church in this way.

...I've also put my hand up for Bible reading, which was rather novel as the number of dates I was availible was less than most people weren't.

  Upfront I will say that this is something I'm saying within a Christian framwork.  As always, however, others are free to comment.

I was in church on Sunday and again I heard those two words that make me cringe - social justice.  It was in the context of a teaching from Luke 4.14-30 where Jesus teaches in Nazreth and is rejected by his home town for teaching in the Synagogue about Elijah and Elisha the prophets being selective in who they healed as they would not have been accepted in some places.  The message of social justice was a brief one but it always grates on my nerves as it is not one that comes from Christian theology, but socialist ideology.  The premise of social justice is the Marxist idea of, "from each according to his means to each according to his need."  That rectification of inequity is the end of compassionate behaviour is not a Christian one, and reading the Bible further reveals that people have to be in desparate need before they recieve help from the church. 

1 Timothy 5.9-16 is a good example of this.  It talks about widows the church was to look after.  This was in an era where women could not work and there was no social security, so widowed and single women had to be looked after by some one.  Basically for some one to be a recipient of the church's welfare they had to be elderly, utterly desitute and have absolutely no family members to look after them.  The point of compassion in this context was not to address the gap between circumstances of rich and poor, but to ensure those that would otherwise starve in the streets, were looked after.  And the command that, "He who has been stealing must steal no longer, bt must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." makes it pretty clear that if some one can work, even for a small wage, they should, not just to help themselves but to help others less fortunate as well.

I know the stereotype of Christians as being poor, but there were some very wealthy people in the early church.  And whilst they were encouraged to give and give generously, there has never been a mandate that they could not live better than others.  I believe that the church   should be concerned that is some one has nothing, be it for reasons of sickness, mental illness, age or the like.  Some people can not survive no matter how much they try to manage themselves and their condition.  But it is not injustice if those who have to rely on the charity and compassion of others have less than those who work hard and support themselves.  Which is not to say that you can't be generous and buy your housebound elderly widowed granny a 2m flat screen because she's dependent on you, but you're not obliged to either.  Only in a Marxist world is inequality, especially when it is the result of work, a bad thing.   Further to this heaven is a prime example, that equity and 'social justice' is not the end of charity.  We know that all who believe will recieve a hearty welcome back ot their masters house, but we also know those who work hard for the Lord are storing up riches in heaven.

Now go and do something to make the life of some one less fortunate a little better!

I'm going to make a spiritual digression. If Theology doesn't tickle your fancy, leave come comments on my review of The Queen or learn how to make goon or tell me what you think about African poverty.

I don't dobut for a minute that God created the world, nor do I ever doubt that God did it in 6 days.  I do have doubts over any evidence for alternative explanations of the origins of the world, espeically as evolution seems to require faith in as many if not more miracles than the entire Christian Bible.

Often Creationists are asked to answer the question of where Cain's wife came from and quote Genesis 5.4 saying, " Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.  However this has never sat well with me.  The reason for saying this must be the case is quoted as that there is a New Testament quote that says all have descended from Adam, therefore all have sinned, giving the pretext for the need of all for slavation.  However, my argument is that God did create other humans, however the arguement in the New Testament still holds as there is another person who every one who is alive today is descended from.

If the Bible is to be read literally and chronologically in Genesis, which I expect it is, then when Cain is cast out of the garden he says to God, "Today you are driving me from the land and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me,"(Gen 4.14). Indicating quite clearly that there were other people on the earth at the time.  Some creationists explain this with the Genisis 5.4 verse saying that Adam and Eve had already had other children.  However the verses prior to this, I believe counter it.  It is not until after Abel is dead, that a third son, Seth is born.  Seth becomes Adam's heir, which if he had older brothers and sisters, would not be the case if Adam and Eve had other chirldren prior.  I believe the emphasis placed on this child indicates that the other people that Cain talks about are not other descendants of Adam.

If there are people now, who were descended from these other people, rather than Adam, then this presents a problem that Christ's message of salvation is not universal to all people.  However, Chapter 5 of Genesis traces Adam's line to Noah.  Noah, as we all know was one of eight people who were saved from the flood. The others being his wife, his sons and their wives.  Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth were all descended from Adam and every one who is on earth now is descended from them.  This means that the universal message of salvation holds withouth believing that Cain married his sister or was in fear of being killed by other, more wayward (is that possible?) brothers and sisters.

"Someguy" sent me this, which I thought would be interesting in light of the St James Centre forum moral dilemas that I have posted in the past:

I was reading an article about new research that said unlike previous medical thought, it is now assumed that new born children can actually feel pain. (I didn't know we thought they couldn't but there you go...).  It went on to talk about surgery on newborn children

Anyway, what of the situation where a newborn needs surgery and anesthetic proves a risk to the development of the child. Considering that the child will not be able to remember the pain of the surgery later in life should the surgery be conducted without anesthetic or with it and risking possible problems due to the anesthetic? Hmmmm.......

I think the fact that any organism is without feeling, developed nervous system or not, is pretty much defunct.  This goes for undeveloped organisms as well as fish (I don't know who thought fish have no feeling, but I thought it was stupid when I heard it and thought is was more so when science proved it wrong - or as I prefer, me right) and even plants.

But my big question on this one is when are we going to develop something that numbs without being as nasty as anesthetic?  And in not using it, are we reverting to the middle ages where they just use to get people really really drunk before operating (that's one hang over I don't want to experience)?  And can the surgery be delayed, will the child die if we wait until they are older before operating?

I've been feeling a bit guilty about not going to church much lately (going on two months for various reasons), so as I was walking back from the NGV disappointed that even though it was light enough for 3pm, it was infact 5pm and the place was closed (sodding daylight savings), I stopped by St Paul's Cathedral to see what time the service was.

I was well aware that attending would probably not be equal to doing something spiritual, not least because it took more than 15 minutes of hunting around to figure out it was in fact Anglican and not Roman Catholic (I was brough up in a very protestant household, even steping over the threshold of a Catholic church would be reason to be disinherited) - the big give away was a cushion in a cabinet with the Royal Crest that apparently Queen Elizabeth II sat on when she attended (for those not in the know QEII is actually the head of the Anglican/Church of England faith, sort of equivalent to the pope but more hands off).  Also eventually I saw in the gift shop they had "Anglican Rosarys" - the only place the word Anglican was used and I am worried as rosarys are, I'm pretty sure, a no go for most Anglicans.

So I turned up and the chior was beautiful, I had goose bumps and not just from the freaking freezing weather down here.  The minister sucessfully got through a surmon that may have even been ten minutes long without refering to the bible once...  I should have known better.

Anglicans have a few different types.  There's high church - the bells and smells types, presiding over the ceremony I went to; and low church - the more low key, modern types that actually find it acceptable to wear jeans and enjoy yourself.  Needless to say I grew up in the second variety of church, who tend to be evangelical.  But the thing I've noticed is the Brisbane high church are a lot more liberal, yes they don't teach the bible either, but they have adopted a new order of service and don't pray for heads of state, try to get involved in leading political debate etc.  They're a lot more traditional down here.  To be honest, I don't mind the ceremony and order of the traditional churches, it's familar and I believe being formal gives the service a sense of importance.  Additionally they tend to have a focus on reaching the community.  The low church on the up side believe in the bible rather than the church, doing good works or tradition.  Which is important, but are often a bit bookish and occassionally insular.  Needless to say I've struggled to find a group that I think have the whole picture.

But the guy teaching today was the chaplin at Geelong Grammar and also a brother of the order of St Francis. He was talking about the work he did with people on the streets of Melbourne and how he wanted to see every Australian have access to the same things.  It sent me off on a thought tangent of how socialist that is, but then I took a step back.  Liberals (political not religious) only believe that the government should not the the ones in charge of welfare.  They do not say it is unnecessary.  They also do not say that people should not work towards having a common minimum standard of living.  But so often it is neglected.  Many many of the people who I agree with politically are not compassionate people.  They wouldn't touch a not for profit organisation if their life depended on it.  It's like compassion is the perogative of the left, which can not be the case in a liberal society.  If we want to see welfare reform, if we want to take that role away from the government (which I think is a good aim) we need to get into the habit now of helping out welfare organisations.  We need to give our time and money to helping the disadvantaged, homeless and mentally ill.  Those who want to be political leaders (or any sort of leader) more so, because they need to lead by example.  But I guess the thing I struggle with constantly is balance and there seem to be lots of people out there who don't bother at all.  So it should be no surprise.

The St James Ethics Centre is an interesting site that offers a montly Ethical Dilema.  They also have a forum where you can discuss things with other forum users.

I thought this one was interesting:

Ethical dilemma:

The ethics of an incompetent colleague

November 2005

A colleague of yours is on an annual contract which is soon due to be renewed. During your time of working together you have become close friends with him on a personal level. You are aware that his wife has recently become pregnant with their second child.

However, while he tries hard and means well, your colleague is really quite imcompetent at his job. You frequently need to work harder to try to compensate for this and have been aware of him covering up some relatively serious mistakes.

Your boss has asked for your advice as to whether or not your friend's contract should be renewed.

Ethical questions:

• What are the issues?
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What should you do?
• What would you do?

Discuss this ethical dilemma in our Ethics Forum.

I don't know if any one did Philosophy at uni, but I did and spent most of my time wondering what funky drugs the lecturers were on to even contemplate some of their questions.  Well for my introductory class, my logic class was great, but it was mostly maths.

One that I've just started thinking about is the question of identity.  If we change over time what makes us the person who we are.  Our values and behaviours change, develop and mature over time.  And our psychological state can differ even throughout our adult life.

Additionally physically we are not the same through our lives, we not only develop and then change our appearance, but our body renews itself.  The matter in my body probably has little of the same atom and cells that made up my body when I was younger.

So what binds my identity, what constitutes continuity between me and me last week or last month or even 10 years ago?

Philosophers also often bring up the idea that continutity of conscousness is not the answer as if some one were to be in a coma, does that mean when they came out they'd be a different person?

I like the concept of having a spirit or soul.  Coming from a Christian background, I've learned that the Hebrew and Greek words for soul are the same as to have breath, and God gave humanity life by breathing into his first creations.  I take this to be that as long as we have breath in our body, we are ourselves.  But I realise this is probably to vague an explanation for some.

Others think that identitiy is cumulative, we are at any one time the product of all of our previous experiences and choices.  And I think this links into the idea of karma, where we carry with us the weight of all our good and all our bad.  I don't like this because I know we can shed the past without shedding ourselves.

At the end of the day, who knows?  What makes me me and you you inspite of changes and development over time?

I've started attending a new church.  It's an Anglican church that my mother went to for a long time.  It's not really traditional, but I guess growing up with that sometimes it feels more homely.

The minister made an interesting point that Jesus didn't mandate that we have buildings the way the Jews were ordered to build the temple, however we still have buildings built by Christians.  I was looking at the architecture, a it's an older church based on some of the old English ones and noiced how with the side chapels the chruch was in the shape of a cross.  We were in the Cross, it's a nice metephor for us being in Christ in his death.

The minster was also teaching out of 2 Corinthians talking about how a gift is appropriate according to what we have, not what we don't have.  He talked about how we didn't have to borrow, but those who have less can't be expected to contribute the same amount as some one wealthy.

But I think that measuring according to what we have rather than don't have is an important message.

The more we have, the more we want, and the more we seem to think we don't have.  How many middle class people that have their cars and are paying off their house think their close to destitution, when there are people out there trying to survive on a part time wage whilst looking after children etc.  And how many people at the top of the tree say they're not really that well off as some one else who's just a little richer.  And people seem to use this as a justification not to give.  Which is not to say all rich people aren't generous because they can be.  But we need to keep perspective.

Well for any one who remembers my entry on God and the Environment I've recieved a reply from the minister of that Chruch.  He said that after reviewing the surmon tapes he didn't think that there was anything unbiblical in what was said and that the point of the teaching was to challenge us.

Well that's fine, but it kind of misses the point of what I had to say.  So much environmental discourse is undergirded by socialist thought.  And socialism, springs from Marxist thought which is famous for the quote "Religion is the opium of the masses."  Also I believe that socialism is genrally quite prescriptive in it's governement, looking to govern through rules rather than liberate and free.  I think a religon like Christianity that is about freedom, should have nothing to do with political thought that seeks to paternalistically guide citizens to what is considered by the status quo ideal behaviour.  It also seeks distributive justice, destroying property rights by redistributing wealth according to a centralised plan.  This is negates property rights which I believe feature strongly in both the old and new testament of the Christian Bible.  Whilst we are also encouraged to give generously to those in genuine need, it is as we feel led, it is not designed to ensure we all have a consistent living standard.  And infact generally wealth redistribution destroys value rather than encourages people to generate further wealth for themselves and in turn the community in which they live.  Redistribution encourages people to be less self-reliant and entrepreneurial, which again I believe does not fit with the New Tesament mandate that people go out and work and support themselves if they haven't done previously (will check reference).  I also believe that giving the government charge over our life, particularly moral aspects, takes away from God's authority in our lives (but not his actualy authority as that exists regardless) and also seeks to give the governement or the state something of the role of God.

I've subsequently orderd "In Defence of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg for the minister.  Even though it could be considered the other extreme, it at least highlights that many of the envirnomental (and economic) arguements we are use to hearing are infact highly ideologically charged and need to be challenged.

Again I want to say that I do think we need an environmental ethic and concern and if we can do some thing cleaner then we should, but not at the expense of all other considerations.  And I certainally don't agree with restricting consumption for the sake of the environment as in the process we loose choice, jobs and the quality of life that us, our current governements, our forefathers and their systems of governing have worked hard to achieve.

I've added the links to some articles with some alternative thought on environmental activism and the Kyoto Protocol:

• http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/summer02-03/polsumm0203-5.pdf
• http://www.cis.org.au/Exechigh/EH2000/EH1400.html
• http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622

Well for the second time this year I am faced with the prospect of having to leave a church.

Tonight's surmon was about The Environment, which I can deal with.  I think it's something we all need to think about and even use it to determine our consumption  choices.  For example, I tend to aviod Woolworths as they went ahead with developing a site at Malaney which was destructively close to platypus habitat.  Equally I tend to wear clothes made of natural fibres as synthetic material is made from plastics, which come from oil, a non-reneweable resource.  I don't however believe that legislation is always the way forward.  And for example with the ethanol debate, I think it is for car manufacutrers to make the move and start producing and marketing cleaner products.

I also think it's a concern Christians need to have.  When Adam and Eve were cursed and thrown out of Eden, three relationships were broken.  Humanity's relationship with God, each other and the environment.  Being in God's image and being entrusted with the care of the world and all within in, we need to look after our environment and our resources and not squander them.

I don't however buy into the left-wing ideology that the West is getting rich at the expense of the West (it's not our governement's have allowed greater economic growth by being less restrictive rather than having command economies that restrict development and trade), that the West is not doing enough to help the environment (we have cleaned up our act significancly and China's increase in Green house gass in 11 months is more than Australia's entire out put for the whole year) or that we will run our of resources (we will do as we have done int he past and innovate).  I also think that using resources carefully is not anti-consumerist and it is the fact that our consumption is unregulated that allows for innovation, differentiation and freedom.  Freedom of choice is one of the most important things we have.  I believe that politically but also spiritually.

I've written the following email to the minister that was teaching (it wasn't him but another lady that got up and delivered all the socialistically-tainted stuff).  Obviously I've changed names initials etc.  Guess I will just have to wait and see what the response is...

Dear E,

 

I left the service early this week as I was really disappointed with the message that was being delivered tonight.  I thought that the message you delivered, that was biblical, was quite good and I believe that an environmental concern is something that every Christian must adopt.  However the majority of secular environmentalists also deliver a political message, which is one of socialism that I fundamentally disagree with.  This political message was extremely strong in the talk delivered by the lady who got up and spoke after your message.

Essentially the message that the West has gotten rich at the expense of poorer countries and that addressing social/economic inequality though making ourselves poorer is not only flawed but one of the false tenants that socialism is built on.  It is not an ideology that I support and would even go as far to say as there are many elements of socialism that are unbibilical and un-Christian.

I was really disappointed to hear this message preached at St G's as I'm sure I'm not the only one who does not identify with this political message and would prefer not to hear it taught at the front of a church.  There are an enormous variety of political views that can be accommodated by the Church as there are many political issues that God has left up to our discretion and it is better that it is left up to the discretion of the individual Christian.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I 100% agree that God has made us stewards of the earth and need to have an environmental concern as the relationship that we have with the earth was one of those broken in the fall.  But I don't agree with buying into the guilt, the ideology and the flawed economics that is coupled with so much secular discourse on the environment.

 

AJ

Yeah for Crud Journalism

I don't have any random thoughts about bodily functions or gross website today.  Today has been a challenging day with regards to many things.

That quality publication The Sunday Mail, published an article about how the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries is way on the increase.  Now this was acompanied by a few litle pangs of guilt not unassociated with last weekend and the fact that I have had my share of illness that has not been caused by alcohol but exacerbated by it (let's leave the time I sliped on some one else's spilled drink in a club and broke my tailbone - may Belushi's be forever cursed).  But this coupled with the proliferation of drug use (which just funds terrorism you fools) and te fact that when I hear about sex it's usually in the context of deviancy rather than loving relationships, I'm starting to want to make a grab for some moral high ground.

But I'm not going to say that people should swear off sex and booze and rock and roll because in the right context they are all very good, God given things.  What I want to ask is 'What's happened to moderation?'  It seems that life is now all about excess, whether it's in our spending or if this is not possible our lifestyles.  I for one struggle with moderation - in my spending, diet and occasionally (but not more than once a month) my drinking.  My challenge for the last week has been to learn to enjoy things without going over the top.  I'm hoping this won't leave me being even more anti-social but we'll see.

The Secret Life of Guilt

I actualy really enjoyed the surmon at church again tonight and I think that Christian or not the message was really good.  We looked at Psalm 51, which was written by King David of Israel after he had slept with another man's wife.  Not only that but the woman got pregnant, he tried to cover it up and ended up killing the husband.

I doubt I'm alone when I say that I stuff up, but sime times I know I go out and do the wrong thing in a fashion similar to David.  The reason I always think of this passage is because it teaches us that if we do the wrong thing, don't make it worse by continuting to do the wrong thing.  Sometimes it's a struggle to fess up, sometimes you don't have to but you know you may need to cover your tracks, or not talk to certain people or speak out in support of something you don't if you want to get away with it.  The thing I've found tho is being honest and up front leaves you free, you don't have to restrict yourself to a further course of action that you may not like or agree with.

But the minister this evening looked at the Psalm as David's prayer to have his guilt taken away, to be totally refreshed and renewed.  I know I don't always feel guilty about things, more othen than not I just feel empty, but so often I long to just have everything just washed away, blotted out and completely gone.