Wednesday, February 03, 2010

We are more than our bodies

A friend drew my attention to this article which is written in reaction to Tony Abbot's recent comments. I'll quote a bit of it in case you can't be bothered reading it.

[T]he Opposition Leader's description of virginity as ''the greatest gift you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving'' was nauseating. The comment both fetishes a woman's virginity and reduces her value to the presence of a hymen, to the unpenetrated state of her vagina. Why is that the greatest gift a woman can give someone? What about her mind? Her actions? Dare I say it, her soul?

Coslovich, the author, suggests that the way forward is for a woman to "to safely explore one's sexuality, when one is ready to do so, not when one's peers or politicians say you are ready to do so".

I wholeheartedly agree that there is more to women (and men) than our bodies, and that we have more value than as partners for sex. But I disagree with both her perception of the Christian attitude and the alternative she purports.

I agree that people should be free to chose how they behave sexually, but Coslovich follows this with the false assumption that the very fact of being free to chose must necessarily mean that it is best to milk that freedom for all it's worth - by embracing a variety and multiplicity of experience. This is not necessarily true. It may be better to freely choose helpful restriction - as when we decide to drink in moderation, not because someone is making us, but because we see that this will turn out to be the more enjoyable, healthy and dignifying option.

Going into marriage a virgin is not some ugly exercise in defining women as pieces of (prize) meat. That is emphatically not the Christian motivation. It is, in fact, quite opposite. Keeping sex to marriage is saying that there is more to sex and more to the people who sleep together than brute physicality. Christians wait until they are married before having sex because this is the only context in which the emotional, psychological and relational aspects of sex can be protected, honoured, and flourish. It is in sleeping around that women and men get treated as like disposable sexual objects.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Shalom

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is like heaven. The people who receive a new home are struggling valiantly through life, but they've reached a point where they're overwhelmed and at their wits' end. Fathers have been shot in the line of duty; Mums have had cancer; houses have burned down; family members are disabled; children have died. They're living in caravans or in houses that are falling apart or that are inaccessible to wheelchairs. So their community bands together, local businesses donate their services and, in a week, a new house is built. This show is a testiment to what is good in American culture.

The show's like heaven because these people receive a free gift out of someone else's generosity - and because that gift is extravagant. The houses are opulent and designed to delight and satisfy the needs and wishes of the family. (Check out photos of
a house, a little girl's room and a couple of master bedrooms.) It's also like heaven because of what the recipients say:
My wife is my best friend. Through this tragedy she's been there with me from thick and thin and this master bedroom is just a quiet place where she can escape to and she is finally going to be able to relax a little bit, and that is, it's just a huge blessing.
Carlton Marshall

When I first walked in the house, I was blown away. The old house was filled with stress and worry and the new house is absent of any of that. It's filled with joy.
Nathan Montgomery

I don't think I've ever been as happy in my life until I was at that moment right there when that bus moved . . . the thought that I'll never have to sleep in that trailer again - it's a wonderful feeling - the new home is more than I've ever dreamed about - and it's so beautiful. It screamed 'Here's your future, and it is bright'.
I was speechless when I walked in that front door - it is the most beautiful house I've ever seen . . . . I feel like I can take a deep breath and feel comfortable. That's the greatest gift ever.
Joey Stott

Having this new house, life is going to be 100% better, and I'm forever grateful to everybody who helped build a new home for me.
James Terpenning

I thought the direction of my life had come to an end, but after today I quickly
realised that I still have a life. The life you've given me back is a tremendous, tremendous thing.
Carlton Marshall

I will be thanking everybody for every day for the rest of my life.
Joey Stott

These words are a shadow of what is to come:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Revelation21:1-5

Monday, January 04, 2010

Never born

I have been putting this post off for a long, long time. It's about abortion you see and I sometimes find it really difficult to talk about, like it's too much to bear. But I wanted you all to be aware of what I learned last year. I was researching for a pro-life prayer group I started at college. I don't trust anyones' second-hand stats, so I went to the effort of finding stuff out for myself. But before I tell you the facts, I'd like to urge you to look at photos of aborted babies. I've only done it once, sometime last year, and don't feel up to doing it again. But the reason I'd encourage you to do it is because it makes the situation plain. These foetuses have perfect, tiny little hands and feet, funny looking heads with eyes, noses and mouths, little rib cages and spindly arms and legs. And they're lying there lifeless and crushed, with blood all around. And it's not some advertising fabrication to pull at your heart strings - that's actually what it is. It's hard to go on talking about it until you can grasp what it is I'm talking about. So here's a link. You might want to ask God for his strength and hope before you look at the photos though.

Okay now you are ready to find out how much of a problem this is in Australia. Before I tell you, you need to understand about how people of all ages die in Australia and in what numbers. The only reputable figure for numbers of abortions in Australia is for the 2003-2004 financial year. So I looked at the deaths recorded by the ABS for the 2004 calender year (abortion is not included in these statistics).

In 2004 the total number of people who died in Australia was 132, 508. The ABS found that the leading cause of death was 'malignant neoplasms', which killed 37, 989 people. The number of children and adults who were murdered was 164.

Meanwhile on the 31st January 2005 Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aging a number of questions about abortion figures in Australia. These questions were answered by the Minister, Senator Patterson, on the 10th May 2005. Abortion statistics aren't recorded anywhere centrally, so the Minister had to compile the statistics from a number of sources (eg Medicare rebates). The figure he came up with for all of Australia (in roughly the same time period as the ABS statistics I quoted above) was appoximately 90, 000 abortions. He then forwarded his findings to each state health minister and they all agreed with this figure (except the NSW minister who didn't reply in time).

This means that for approximately the same time period, deaths due to abortion accounted for more than double the highest recorded number of deaths due to any other single cause. If they were to be included in the ABS figures, the 90, 000 deaths because of abortion would add a further 68% to the total number of people who died in Australia that year. This figure of 90, 000 far outshadows the 164 people that the ABS recorded as murdered.

So you see why I think this is one of the most major issues to face the church today. And why I think that history will be even more confounded and disgusted by our inaction than we are at those German Christians who stood by while their Jewish neighbours disappeared. But I also think this is a highly complex and clearly sensitive issue, and that ignorance and tragically misplaced good intention are part of the mix. So I'm in no way advocating a heavy-handed approach. In fact, I'm inclined to think that only those who are particularly gifted should do things like lobby. But that doesn't mean there's nothing for the rest of us to do. We can pray hard. We can celebrate pregnancies and families. We can care for single Mums and families in crisis. And we can share God's forgiveness and comfort with women who've had abortions.

Women's ordination

A friend kindly lent me Fit For This Office: Women and Ordination1. Now this isn't the place to defend what I think the Bible says about women in ministry, but suffice to say that I don't think women should take major leadership positions (like that of a pastor or priest) or preach to a regular Sunday congregation. Obviously I think that women should be able to exercise leadership over other women and over children, but when it comes to men, I think that the way God set up the world was so that men might lead and women follow and assist. I know it all sounds horribly patriarchal, but I think it's beautiful, like a dance.

Anyhow, the women who contributed to this book would most certainly not agree with me. Some because they've interpreted the Bible differently to me. Others, however, because they've take a more pragmatic, felt approach. The editor, Barbara Field starts by simply observing that:

Until fifteen years ago, women were non-existent in the official ministry of the Anglican Church. Public and liturgical functions were carried out by men. The
administering and governing of the Church were done by men. There were no women in the three orders of minstry - deacon, priest and bishop. The people in the sanctuary were men. The people in the procession were men, except for members of the choir where women were allowed because there were not enough men who would join. The whole public face of the Church was, and indeed mostly still is, male. The chief contradiction to this up-front male scene was that most of the congregation were women, and most of the people at prayer meetings and Bible studies were women.
2

She simply assumes that lack of leadership equals lack of respect and value. This assumption echoes throughout the book and results in talented, caring women experiencing great pain and suffering. As they see it, God has given them gifts to lead his people that they are unable to exercise. This is something that they feel very deeply. And it is because of this that they put themselves forward - not because they're ball-breaking feminists, but because they believe they it is what God is calling them to do. They accept the leadership positions and responsibilities that their denomination or area is prepared to give them, and humbly, patiently wait for that time when they will be given more.

I'm really glad I read the book. It helped me understand why people are so ardent about women needing to be ordained. But it made me sad that (as I understand it) these women have too quickly bought into our society's view that your worth is measured by your function. This belief has all manner of ugly repercussions - like for the elderly and people with disabilities. But God sees things differently. Everywhere in Scripture women are respected, affirmed and told their worth, and men are commanded to treat their women well. But Scripture also presents two different sexes, each with a different, complementary role. And fulfillment of gifts can be found within that role.

The book ends with some very wise words from Beatrice Pate:

Above all, we must have confidence in God. We are members of his Church, visible and invisible. Victory is his; it was won through the Cross. Each of us called to follow him will share that victory with him. How dare we suggest that only those who view the world in a particular way are being true to him - he had called us all, with all our differences and in spite of our wilful sinfulness. We must treat each other as brothers and sisters, with love and acceptance. This applies to a person totally opposed to the ordination of women when approaching a women who is ordained. It applies to the proponent of ordination of women when faced with one who rejects even the possibility that ordination could 'work' on a women . . . . The model I am proposing calls for us to act with love towards each other, to begin to grow to maturity in him in whom we will all one day come to completion, and to stop squabbling like two-year-olds deprived of their toys. What I suggest is easy to reject. Those opposed to the ordination, believing right is on their side, feel obliged to fight the ordination question as a matter of fundamental importance. Similarly, those in favour of the ordination of women can easily beliee that as a part of a persecuted 'minority' they must stridently demand their 'rights'.

. . . . But this does not let us ignore the call to continue striving in the path of love.3


1 B Field (ed), Fit For This Office: Women and Ordination (Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1989)
2 Field, "Introduction," 1.

3 Pate, "Rights or Reconciliation: A Personal Statement," 121.


Saturday, January 02, 2010

Last Year's Revelations

Over on my other blog, I've added a couple more things to Things to live by and The living's easy.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Womens' events

I don’t always like womens' events. I think that's because people often don't seem to be themselves. Everyone tries really hard to be polite and friendly and the topics of conversation are kept to what is safe and shared (raising children, clothes, husbands, common bungles or annoyances). I think this happens because we want everyone to feel included and the event to be harmonious. We also fear the opinions of other women. Just stepping into a room full of women can make us feel either insecure and unconfident, or competitive and self-promotional. This is made worse when we don’t know all the women at the event, because we really want these strangers to like us and we don’t want to embarrass ourselves or our host.

We end up trying way too hard. We need to relax, stop worrying about what the other women think of us, and be sincerely respectful, interested and caring. Women in charge of running events can create a helpful atmosphere by conveying their acceptance of everyone (perhaps by dressing down, being laid-back about protocol and acting the clown). They can also put on calm, happy music, provide yummy food and drink and make sure that women who don’t know anyone are looked after. The running of the event or the layout of the room can be engineered so that more intimate conversations are encouraged. It can also help to let people know what will take place, what will be expected of them and assure them that they won’t be asked to do anything embarrassing.

Monday, November 09, 2009

The living's easy

Sometimes I'm good with people, but sometimes I get shy and find it hard to talk to them . . . and sometimes I talk, but keep myself back out of distrust. Still other times I'm trying hard to impress and not really being myself.

So I've prayed that I will share myself with people, and put them first. I like it when God answers this prayer because then I'm a little more like Jesus, the relationships are a little more like they will be in heaven and I'm more myself than at any other time. Too much time spent worrying over your image or fears turns you into a caricature of your true self. If, by God's grace, you can forget these things, then the living's easy - you have only to be the woman or man God made you to be.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Sex in the service of God

I asked Mikey if he'd read any good books lately and he put me onto Christopher Ash's Marriage: Sex in the Service of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003). He's already posted a number of quotes from the book, but what the heck, I want to as well. I've only read bits of it and quickly, but as far as I can tell Ash's thesis is that marriage and sex was created not to mitigate against loneliness, but to mitigate against ineffectiveness. Women was created in the context of man being given a noble job to do (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15) - to help him in that task (2:18). Ash writes (of 2:22-23):
Here is a natural and innocent affirmation of sexual desire and delight, of nakedness untouched by shame.

Yet we must not conclude that the final goal of this delightful and intimate companionship is to be found in the delight, the intimacy or the companionship. This is delight with a shared purpose, intimacy with a comon goal, and companionship in a task beyond the boundaries of the couple themselves. As we rejoice with the lovers in the garden, we must not forget that there is work to be done.1

Ash observes that this is not to deny the blessing of marriage for the lonely, and yet, "The Bible has a great deal to say about the longings of the human heart. This is more pronounced in some places than in others, but there is much about love, friendship and fellowship. It is very striking, however, that almost never are these longings and their satisfaction placed in the context of sexual relationship."2 He then refers to 1 John 4:7-21; 1 Thessalonians 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 13; John 13-16; Philemon 7; 1 Samuel 18-20; 2 Samuel 1:26. He conclusion is that:
If in our society the unmarried (or those who are not in what are revealingly called 'relationships') do experience loneliness (as they undoubtably do), we are not therefore to point their hopes inevitably in the direction of a sexual relationship, but rather to human relationships of friendship and fellowship. This is a challenge to churches to be the kinds of loving communities in which real relationship is not coterminous with sexual relationship.3


He then speaks about unhealthy things that can result from warped expectations of the marriage relationship, noting first that a marriage fails the test of being a loving relationship "unless its charity extends beyond the bounds of reciprocity" (see Luke 6:32 and also 16:27f; Acts 5:1-11).4 He then notes that it is "only a short step" from the selfishness of an inward-looking marriage to the selfishness of self-actualisation, of seeking only your own fulfillment from your marriage partner. This is too much to ask of anyone. Ash says, "In the Bible's perspective the way forward is neither via individual autonomy nor in introspective companionship, but in the joyful shared service of God."5

However even this biblical attitude has its dangers. "Marriage is to be a visible and lived-out image of the love of the Lord for his people . . . The paradox is that when we begin to think of the marriage relationship as an end in itself . . . we slip very easily into a privatization of love that contradicts the open, outward-looking and gracious character of covenant love."6 Rather partners in a faithful marriage may be "imbued with a vision for a shared usefulness. They work together to build a marriage in which faithful love overflows in fruitfulness beyond the borders of themselves as a couple alone."7 Only by God's grace, by his strength in our weakness.


1 Ash, Marriage, 121.
2 ibid, 117.
3 ibid, 122.
4 ibid, 123.
5 ibid, 126.
6 ibid, 127.
7 ibid, 369.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Things to live by

Here's some things that I've been learning and living by over the last few months:


Whatever my talents, I'm an ordinary person.

There are things I'm at a loss to understand, and that's okay.

There are many good things in my life, for which it makes sense to be thankful.

There are also bad things, as there are for everyone.

God is over the good and bad. He has always been there for me and has shown he is worthy of trust.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Noel Pearson

This post will basically be a potted summary of Noel Pearson's ideas, as outlined in the various talks and essays that make up his new book, Up From the Mission. I'm a massive fan of Noel Pearson (the head of the Cape York Institute and currently working for the Cape York Land Council) and am profoundly impressed by his wise mix of pragmatism, conciliation and standing firm. As someone who thinks that neither the truth nor the wisest course of action is the exclusive domain of either the Left or the Right, Pearson is a welcome figure in Australian public life. I am only just scratching the surface here and would urge all Australians to read what this Aboriginal leader has to say.

Pearson says:

My generation at Hope Vale cannot honestly point to colonisation and dispossession as the immediate causes of our social problems. The generations before us are an example of how the maintenance of true Aboriginal traditions within the context of adaptation to a Christian mission produced a successful community.1


He highlights one key cause of the current disfunction in Aboriginal society:

The right to self-determination is ultimately the right to take responsibility. Our traditional economy was a real economy and demanded responsibility (you don't work, you starve). The whitefella market economy is real (you don't work, you don't get paid).

After we became citizens with equal rights and equal pay, we lost our place in the real economy. What is the exception among whitefellas - almost complete dependence on cash handouts from the government - is the rule for us. There is no responsibility and reciprocity built into our present artificial economy, which is based on passive welfare (money for nothing).
2

This [welfare] mentality is internalised and perpetuated by recipients, who see themselves as victimised or incapable and in need of assistance without reciprocation. Everyone in a passive welfare economy is susceptible to irrational (mis)appropriation and (mis)expenditure of money, because that is the very nature of the money. Money acquired without priniciple is expended without principle.
3

He explains the factors behind the beginning and continuance of a second key cause of disintegration:

Substance abuse originally got a foothold in our communities because many people were bruised by history and likely to break social norms . . . . But when a young person (or an older non-addict) is recruited to the grog and drug coteries today, the decisive factor is the existence of these epidemics themselves, not his or her personal background. And for those who did begin using an addictive substance as an escape from a shattered life and from our history, treating those original causes (if indeed you can do anything about those original causes) will do little. The addiction is in itself a stronger force than any variation in the circumstances of the addict.4 Addiction is a condition in its own right and it is just as difficult to do anything about an addiction if you are a socially and economically strong white professional who became addicted through the careless drinking of exquisite wines, as if you are an unemployed member of a decimated and dispossessed Aboriginal tribe.5

My own view is that the most significant causal chain is this: (i) substance abuse and the chaos it causes lead to (ii) violence and other crimes, which lead to (iii) over-representation in custody and in the criminal justice system. This is as plain as day to anyone who knows life in our communities
6

Pearson discusses how Aboriginal people might best respond to their circumstances:

I would urge people to draw a distinction between that trauma which is personal and immediate and which may incapacitate individuals or families, and that trauma which is inherited and more remote, and which renders people susceptible to problems, but does not leave them incapacitated . . . . Personal trauma needs to be recognised and attended to. Inherited trauma needs to be recognised, but it is also imperative that we recognised that economic and social empowerment is ultimately the best - and arguably the only - cure . . . . The danger with ideological fixation on inherited tauma is that we promote a culture of victimhood, rather than a determination to get back on our feet as a people. We must never let the true history of our people be forgotten or obscured, but we must avoid creating an ideology that turns history into a personal disability for able-bodied members of our community.7

Pearson explains why polarised politics fail:

[T]he distance between good and bad policies is most often very fine - they are seldom poles apart. People from both sides of the cultural and political divide usually believe the distance between their own correct policies and their opponents' wrong policies to be substantial. Politics is given to stark caricatures . . . . This polarisation leads to problems: a failure to distinguish between a potentially correct policy (for instance, policing relatively minor misdemeanours to restore order to crime-ridden , disadvantaged neighbourhoods) and an obviously incorrect one (police harassment and violence) . . . . The tensions involved in policy debates about crime in neighbourhoods centre around questions of freedom and social order. Obviously too much social order undermines freedom. Less obviously, too little social order also undermines freedom. People who live in optimally free and ordered communities often fail to appreciate the fact that a hight degree of social order underpins the freedom they enjoy.8

He provides some practical ways forward:

The truth is that, at least in the communities that I know in Cape York Peninula, the real need is for the restoration of social order and the enforcement of law.9

The High Court's ruling in the Mabo case has now recognised Aboriginal laws and customs as part of the legal system applicable to Aboriginal society and Aboriginal lands. This is a fundamentally important step in the right direction.

Central to the recovery and empowerment of Aboriginal society will be the restoration of Aboriginal values and Aboriginal relationships10

First, the strategy must be aimed at creating an environment in which there is no more unconditional support for irresponsible lifestyles. Second, the strategy must include enforced treatment.11

Together with a strong foundation of social norms and investment in capabilities, we need to make sure that people have the right incentives to ascend the staircase . . . . This is why I have been so critical of the passive welfare state. It creates perverse incentives that tell sixteen-year-olds that it is better to go on the dole than to finish school, or that tell parents they will receive money irrespective of their
child's wellbeing and educational participation.12

One of the country's most successful industrialists, Forrest has inititiated an idea without parallel. The extraordinary feature of the
Australian Employment Covenant is that Forrest and his private-sector colleagues are setting the goal of guaranteeing 50,000 jobs for Indigenous Australians. It cannot be overstated how fundamentally this opportunity changes the landscape.13


Pearson's desire is to see Indigenous people embrace:

'Everything that enables our younger generations in Cape York Peninsula to achieve their fullest potential, talent and creativity, so that they have the confidence and capacity to orbit between two worlds and enjoy the best of both.'14


1 N Pearson, Up From the Mission (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2009), 27.
2 ibid, 143.
3 ibid, 153.
4 ibid, 174.
5 ibid, 175.
6 ibid, 179.
7 ibid, 162.
8 ibid, 246-47.
9 ibid, 240.
10 ibid, 149.
11 ibid, 177.
12 ibid, 277-78.
13 ibid, 320-21.
14 ibid, 331.

Compensating Indigenous Australians

I attended the John Saunders lecture where the wonderful Peter Adam spoke about the right and wrong of our nation's history and called on non-Aboriginal Australians to compensate Aboriginal Australians for the theft of their land. He's giving the talk again on the 5th October in Melbourne. I found it unsettling and compelling and left convinced . . . until I spoke to some very smart people who pointed out some problems with the whole thing. I have listed these issues below - and my resolution of them.


1. While I agree that both the Old and New Testaments talk about recompense, it is only mentioned sparingly, certainly in the NT. This made me wonder if it is not always applicable. The NT emphasis seems to be much more on forgiveness and unity between, for example, Jew and Gentile. I wondered if the biblical writers push this even in cases where speaking of recompense would have been relevant.

I think that the answer to this may be that, yes, compensation may not be required. But that does not take away from the fact that it may be very good and fitting.


2. I also wondered about the legitimacy of corporate guilt for non-covenantal people. Often when a people is seen as guilty, it is their covenantal unfaithfulness towards God that is in view.

The only exception I could think of to this is in the first chapters of Amos - but I have since had more pointed out to me, so I no longer think that this is a legitimate point.


3. There is a sense in which recompense on a corporate scale becomes ridiculous. Human history consists of layers of wrong done by one people to another. On what grounds should recompense be given to the Australian Aboriginal people and none given to the other peoples that my Anglo-Saxon ancestors conquered?

I think that while this is true, the taking of Aboriginal land is a clear and nationwide wrong done in recent history, and as such, it seems fitting that we should take responsibility for it, even if we forget other historical wrongs.


4. I think that if recompense of Aboriginal people is valid, then it only makes sense to do it on a national scale. I think it will be impossible for just recompense to be given on a local scale, with local churches/communities/councils etc giving recompense to local Aboriginal groups. An attempt to do local-level recompense will fail at a number of points. For example, should the Aboriginal people who are currently living there be recompensed, or should they be recompensed by the people from the place they were born? Should European people who live in an area with lots of Aboriginal people pay higher recompense? Should recent immigrants be excluded? The mix of these questions will be impossible to sort out with any accuracy and justice.

So I think that the best course of action would be for the Prime Minister to give a once-of, costly recompense on behalf of all Australians. I think that more symbolic action is the only thing that has legitimacy at this stage in our nation's history.

Another possible course of action that has been suggested to me is that heads of the various Christian denominations make recompense on behalf of the church. I think this would be a brilliant example of the church taking the lead.


5. On a related note, I think that, as well as a national apology, it would be profoundly beneficial for non-Aboriginal people to receive a national we-forgive-you from Aboriginal people. Otherwise we are left feeling perpetually guilty, which doesn't help our country move forward.


H/T Sophie, Dan and Jono

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

How to support single women

Here's some ideas about how churches with lots of families can be sensitive to and supportive of single women. Some of it may also apply to women who infertile and to single men. It's written for husbands, but it can be for anyone.
  • Be aware that single women may feel unconfident and lonely, and perhaps despairing and bitter. They may feel they are second-class women, not properly feminine. All these feelings will be heightened if there are lots of pregnant women and families around. Single women may also feel a lot of pain at not having kids. It may be heartbreaking for them to be around pregnant women or little kids. I don't know what can help with this. Maybe it's enough for people to be aware of it, and for Mums not to be offended if single women avoid them and don't help with the kids, and for single women to know they're not doing anything wrong if they feel like this.

  • Show single women great respect and affection. Remember that the less honourable parts deserve greater honour (and I know this can apply to Mums too!).

  • Encourage all the women, whether single or married, confident or unconfident, to reach out to each other and show interest in and respect for each other. You do not want only Mums chatting with Mums and single women chatting with single women, though of course a bit of this is natural and fine.

  • Encourage the Mums to not only talk about their kids or their marriage or their new life when single women are part of the conversation. A bit of this is great and interesting and makes single women feel included, but too much is painfully marginalising.

  • Value the role single women can play in the life of your family. You may want to seek their opinions about how you should parent your kids because even though they don't have kids, they do have life experience and know biblical truths. Include them in the life of your family, and really treasure them being Aunties for your kids and let them know that you do.

  • Families are a bigger 'entity' than single people. They are much more 'present' and 'in your face'. I think this means they capture peoples' attention more. This can mean that people like church leaders spend more time chatting to or socialising with Mums and Dads. This is a tricky one because families are more complex and do, in a way, require more attention. But be careful not to gloss over single women because you haven't noticed them. This will probably be even more likely to happen if these women are feeling unconfident or unworthy, and so are themselves retreating into the background.

  • Remember that single women don't have a man around (unless they're close friends with a guy or have a great relationship with their brother or Dad). This means they don't have someone to protect or provide for them. So, don't do things like leave them to catch a bus in the dark (unless of course they're totally fine with it). Show them the same graciousness you would like another man to show your wife if you weren't there.

  • Single women haven't been through any life events in which it is culturally appropriate for people to look after them or celebrate them. Because they've never had a wedding, their family and friends have never bought them expensive homewares. Because they've never had a baby, they've never had dinners brought round. It's unreasonable, yet easy, for single women to feel neglected and get bitter about these things. It would be so lovely for people to do things for them or give them things, even when there was no 'occasion'.

  • It's good to have Bible study groups that are demographically mixed. It makes it possible for single women to put their situation in perspective and to care for the other group members, whatever their situation, just as they are cared for in return.

  • Preaching the Bible gives single women hope and comfort, rebuke and perspective, and teaches them how to live in a God pleasing way.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Theology for different cultures

Contextualising theology is about properly applying theology. Behind it is the assumption that while there are fundamental biblical truths essential to the Christian faith everywhere, the emphasis and understanding of certain of those truths will vary across cultures, as will their expression. So it is to some extent necessary - and unavoidable - to read and systematise the Bible with the mindset, questions and needs of the specific culture in view. The validity of this approach can be found in the apostle Paul's example and command, as well as being assumed from the diversity of content and potential application of biblical material. Paul used the language, understanding and questions of the Athenian culture when speaking about the gospel (Acts 17). He also addresses more peripheral issues that are relevant to a specific cultural context (eg 1 Cor 10). And it can be inferred that in his example of adapting to different cultures to save some he also adapts his thinking (1 Cor 9:19-23).


The danger with contextualising theology is twofold. Firstly, the Bible's emphases and the questions that it asks of the culture can be overlooked. No culture asks all the questions that God would have it ask or emphasises the things that God would have it emphasise. The second issue is related to this – even if the right questions are asked, the answers can be misunderstood (and misapplied) if the values of the culture are too much in view. The Bible must be allowed to give its own answers even – or perhaps especially – when they are counter-cultural.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Theology

I love immersing myself in the Bible and coming away with something of an overview of what God says on a particular topic. And I love it that throughout history other, smarter people have done this and I get to read and benefit from their work. So I get cross when people accuse theology of being esoteric and useless for everyday living. Knowing anything more about the reality of the different things that make up life is always going to have practical use. Of course, you can be lazy and not bother to think about the practical implication of some point of theology. Or you can be cowardly and not actually get out there and live in that way. But the blame for those things lies in a different direction to theology.

Putting your elbows on the table and swearing

I swear in Hobart 'cos no-one seems to have a problem with it. I don't swear in Sydney 'cos I don't want to grieve people who think it's wrong (Romans 14:14-15). I've been challenged to think more about this lately, and to really try and work out if it's right for me to swear at all. I think there are two issues when it comes to swearing.

The first is to do with motive and emotion and conscience. We’ve got to ask why and in what circumstances we swear. Is it in anger or aggression? Does it happen when we lose self-control? Is it against God or belittling him? These things are all very bad and if they are the reason we swear, we should stop swearing and work on the underlying sinful desire (James 3:7-10; Matthew 12:36-37; 15:17-20). Now I know that not everyone reading this will be quite able to believe me here, but I say to you that my conscience is untroubled when I swear. I chose to swear – it doesn’t happen from a loss of self-control. I love using the English language in all its richness, and swear words are one of the things I use to add emphasis and colour to what I say.

The second issue concerns the meaning and social function of the words themselves. This is to do with how the English language currently works. The Bible is clear that we shouldn’t speak in obscene, crude, destructive or impious ways (Ephesians 4:29; 5:4; Colossians 3:8), so if we think that swearing fits any of these we should certainly abstain. In a recent post I said:-

I think that the obscene meaning of these words has been lost, leaving only a useful emphatic function.


With the exception of using the names of God as swear words, I do think this is true. I mean who thinks of blood seeping everywhere when they say “bloody”, or of people having sex when they say “fuck”? The words have lost the meaning they once had. And what’s more, it doesn’t look like all those meanings were even particularly bad or obscene to begin with. What’s so offensive about blood!?

But if these words have lost their meaning, why do some people still think they’re bad? I think it's because they have stayed in a ‘naughty’ category.

So where does this leave me? It leaves me thinking about putting my elbows on the table. I have no idea why my Mum thinks it’s wrong for me to put my elbows on the table. I don’t think she knows why either. Maybe it’s because there was once something genuinely offensive about it, or maybe it’s because her Mum told her not to do it. So, like swearing, putting your elbows on the table is considered rude by some people. This means that for me both things become a question of courtesy. And I really value courtesy.


So I still think it’s okay for me to swear. But I'm going to try to be a whole lot more courteous about it. I'm only going to swear if I'm pretty sure you haven't got a problem with it. And, while I welcome feedback, I ask you not to judge me, just as I will try not to judge you :-) (Rom 14:2-4).

Saturday, July 25, 2009

New in Town

Chapter The First: In Which Our Heroine Sends Things To Her Pastor. Sure to be a hoot.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Hobby Horse Revisited

Sometimes I worry that I come across as a liberal Christian, someone who has abandoned the difficult, absolute biblical truths for less defined, more palatable understandings. I worry because I do afterall, swear and drink and dance and enjoy Bill Bailey. However I categorically believe in: the hopeless sinfulness of all people; Satan's furious work in the world; the coming judgment; Jesus' resurrection from death and faith in him as the only path from hell to a blessed, eternal life. So why am I so free 'n easy in my behaviour and so dogmatic in my beliefs? Am I a hypocrite?

Well I'm hardly the one to answer that question (despite having asked it - how delightfully pomo heh heh) but I try not to be hypocritical. No, the reason I live the way I do is precisely because my faith is all about these really weighty, ultimate things. Weighty, ultimate things do play out in the details of life - it's not that details are unimportant, but rather that Christianity is not about certain conservative cultural practices.

So I swear because I think that the obscene meaning of these words has been lost, leaving only a useful emphatic function. I drink because alcohol is a good gift from God and drunkness, not temperate drinking, is forbidden. I dance because our bodies are important and good, and it is possible for men and women to relate physically without impurity or lust. I enjoy Bill Bailey because he's astute and cheeky, but I hit fastforward when he gets too crass or irreverent.

Being socially conservative doesn't get my knickers in a knot. The sort of things that bother me are lying, thinking lustfully about someone else's husband, abandoning self-control, flaunting my body, jealously, pride, selfishness and unforgiveness. It's my ardent desire not to allow myself any liberality when it comes to these things.

I guess I just hope - and pray - that people don't assume they've got me figured. I hope that, at the very least, I'll puzzle them and get them to think. This Christian faith is not what you might expect. It's a faith in which physical creation is to be celebrated and enjoyed, in which sin is everywhere found but conquered by love, in which the poor in spirit gain the kingdom of heaven.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Jewish Museum

A canny eighty five year old gentleman showed a couple of ladies and I around the Sydney Jewish Museum. As we passed a photograph of men building a wall to divide a Polish city into Jewish and non-Jewish parts, he mentioned that he had seen it under construction. Another photo showed precise lines of Nazi soldiers marching into Poland: he had seen that too. I asked about his family and he said they'd been gassed. At the children's memorial our guide seemed to have as much difficulty as I grasping that people had killed these little children. (Later I remembered that even in peace the killings go on.) He had escaped from a concentration camp, one of only a handful to do so. I stupidly asked him if in his subsequent employment, he had to pretend to be a Christian . . . I wanted to say sorry to him on behalf of all the Christians who did nothing to stop the genocide of his people.

I went around again later and looked at newspaper accounts of the situation in Germany and the Second World War. Before the outbreak of war there was some quite detailed reporting of violence against Jewish people. After the war began, the newspaper accounts were all about Hitler's demands and the progress of the war. I didn't notice anything about concentration camps or what was happening to the Jews. The style of writing, the layout and the mixture of grave world events and both serious and sensational local news was pretty similar to today's broadsheets. I could imagine myself back then reading the Australian papers, concerned for the Jews, then turning the page and forgetting them. As the war began, I doubt I would even remember they had been mixed up in its beginning. I'd just want the allies to win.

In the section on the Jewish faith there were exhibits about the Hebrew Bible. I was so grateful that on the foundation of these people's faith, salvation came to a Gentile like myself. I felt like saying yes, I agree with all this – this is the true and glorious record of the one God. But then I read of their Zionist hopes and looking for a Messiah. A computer was set up with answers to frequently asked questions on its screen. I clicked on, “Why don't Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah?”. The answer given was that the Messiah will establish the nation of Israel and bring peace and prosperity to earth. It grieved me to see the mistake and sin of their fathers being repeated 5000 years on. I felt like crying out, “The Messiah has come! There is good news! What you hope for has happened and more gloriously than you ever imagined!”. But they were closing early for Sabbath and I didn't even get to write in the Visitor's Book.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

My Christian Brothers

I grew up with a little brother. I think he's wonderful and I love him very much. I feel very lucky to have him.

These days I've also got lots of other brothers. They're my Christian brothers and I love them too. I know that relationships between men and women can be complicated and fraught, so that makes me all the more grateful for these guys.

Let me describe what these relationships are like. I don't usually end up having close friendships with my Christian brothers unless they're single or I know their wives. But either way, it's still caring and respectful. Chrsitian brothers of mine have told me I look lovely today, fixed my bike, insisted they drive me home when it's dark, chatted with me, asked me to pray for them, reassured me when I've got a bad mark. Stuff like that. The other day we had a seminar at college about how to care for people addicted to porn. We were asked to talk to the person next to us about how we like people to respond when we tell them something we're going through. Sitting next to me was a Christian brother I'd not met before. We acknowledged that it was a bit wierd to talk about such personal stuff when we didn't know each other, but then we just talked about it and it was fine. We respected and trusted each other.

You know, a lot of the time when I walk down the street or in town or wherever I can tell that men are checking me out. I don't like it - it feels kind of predatory and sleazy and a bit scary. But I never get that feeling around Christian men. I feel respected, and honoured I guess.

I love my Christian brothers. I think it's especially nice to have them around when you're single. They help me not to feel unlikeable or unattractive or unworthy. They help me feel valued and honoured and cared for. I have so much respect and affection for these guys.

I thank Jesus for breaking down the walls that divide men and women, and for enabling us to relate in healthy, respectful, affirming and pure ways.

Friday, May 15, 2009

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a bar . . .

We should only use the word "Australian" when we intend to refer to everyone who lives here, including newer migrants, who have equal right to the title, and Aboriginal Australians, who have more. We have other words to indicate a person's race or country of origin - Chinese, Asian, African, Latin American (latino?) . . . and Anglo. Fellow Anglos, let's avoid implying that we are the only Australians.