MATURITY OF ASSOCIATION

Should Australia “grow up” and cut constitutional ties with Britain?

This debate was reignited recently when Governor-General Quentin Bryce suggested, at a Boyer Lecture she was giving, that Australia should one day evolve as a republic. Many felt that, as the Queen’s representative, this stance was highly inappropriate.

I guess I’ve always tended towards supporting the British monarchy because its heritage and rituals are firmly based in the Christian faith.  The wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton in 2011 was a profoundly Christian event, and the Queen, in her Christmas message that year, boldly proclaimed Jesus as both Saviour and Lord.

But it was something else in the Queen’s message that really got me thinking. She described the nations of the Commonwealth as a family. 

Republicans often use the argument that Australia has “grown up” and that independence from the English monarchy is a necessary and inevitable marker of our maturity as a nation. 

But adults still need family.  They still need relationship.  A mature adult, even more so than a child or adolescent, is able to appreciate the benefits of association. 

The church I belong to is fully autonomous in the sense that no-one interferes with how we run our internal affairs.  But we are part of a movement (CRC Churches International) that provides us with much encouragement and valuable resources.  We may also benefit in various ways from association with other networks of churches.

Maturity doesn’t mean severing relationships.  On the contrary, solid alignment with like-minded others, with whom we share both heritage and values, points to a healthy self-awareness and confidence.

An attitude of strict independence is not healthy, whether in the affairs of nations or in our personal lives.  Family, church, community, or a Commonwealth of nations, I believe that life is richer when we are part of something greater than ourselves. 

A generous attitude of interdependence, I suggest, is the way to go for Australia. Yes, managing our own affairs, and yes, electing our own Prime Minister and appointing Australians to the role of Governor-General, but not breaking with the family of nations that has nurtured us through infancy and adolescence.

(Note: this is a slightly updated version of my article in the Reflections column in The Stardard, Warrnambool, March 2012.)

SKINNY SANTA

Very tempted just to skip blogging this week, perhaps with the excuse that I'm too busy getting ready for Christmas. Maybe also the excuse that I'm not sure anyone is reading this yet (!)
But here's a few observations of things that might come into the 'audacity' category.
It's nothing new, but I have noticed, at public carols-singing events, that quite a few songs involve what is basically prayer to Santa Claus.
'My Grown-Up Christmas List' is just one of many examples. Although I must admit this is better than the various songs that petition Santa to send a lover!
People who have no working relationship with God apparently still feel some need to pray. One rather audacious blog comment that I read this week insisted that letters to Santa are more likely to get a response than praying to God!
No, not sure I can agree with that one! Sandie and I have had too many answers to prayer this year to count. God has guided and blessed us through all sorts of challenging circumstances.
But another current observation about Santa.
I've also noticed, in TV ads and other places, that he is not always depicted as fat. Sometimes, he's actually quite skinny. Someone said that, with the current problem of children's obesity, a fat Santa is setting a very bad example!
In the USA, controversy has been raging about the fact that Santa is white. Apparently, he's not politically correct because he doesn't represent diversity and racial equality.
I wouldn't be surprised if, some Christmas, we start hearing complaints that Santa is always depicted as male.
It's a funny time of year and the dichotomy between a secular vision of Christmas (represented by the Santa myth) and a Christian vision of Christmas (that Jesus came into the world to save us sinners) seems to get wider every year.
May God bless you this Christmas with friends, family and strong faith.

A RICHER KIND OF BEAUTY

The “Hot Topic” in this morning’s Herald Sun was about lingerie football. Apparently, the original Lingerie Football League was an American grid-iron competition that has now been rebranded, with ‘Legends’ replacing ‘Lingerie’ in the name. This competition is now starting in Australia, causing quite a stir of controversy.

Perhaps surprisingly, several of the comments in the newspaper’s opinion page were supportive of the whole idea. If the girls want to do it, why shouldn’t they? some argue.

But the sexualisation of girls and women is a serious issue in Australia. Melinda Tankard Reist, with her Collective Shout movement, has been a leading voice for change in this area. She makes a lot of sense.

I’m not a big fan of modern popular music but, from time to time, I like to check out what’s hot in the world of music videos. It seems to me that more and more hit videos these days feature scantily clad (or worse) women dancing provocatively or writhing sexually on the floor. ‘Audacious’ is a word that comes to mind. The message is clear: if it’s not sexy, it’s not good.

One would almost think that the reason God made girls was for the voyeuristic pleasure of males. Some celebrity women certainly know how to cash in, but does that make it right?

So what is the problem? Am I just an old-fashioned prude who thinks women should be covered from head to toe? Not at all. The problem is that our media associates beauty with sex. You want to be popular? You have to be beautiful. You want to be beautiful? You have to look sexy.

There are other, much richer, much more wonderful kinds of beauty. The Bible says: “Do not let your adornment be merely outward – arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel – rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God (1 Peter 3:3,4).”

Boys need to grow up with an appreciation for the true beauty that is in women. But I fear that our sexualised society is causing more and more young women to flaunt themselves, and more and more young men to see girls first and foremost as sexual objects.

Modesty in behaviour and dress is all about giving people the opportunity to see the better, richer kind of beauty.

(And I hope you understand why I haven’t included any relevant pictures in today’s offering!)

RAINBOW SYMBOLISM

What does a rainbow symbolize for you?

I would expect that Bible-reading Christians, and anyone with a truly biblical worldview, would see the rainbow as a reminder that God has made a covenant with mankind that he will never again destroy the world by flood (Genesis 9:9-17).  In the Bible, we also find one reference to a rainbow in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:28) and two in the book of Revelation (4:3 and 10:1).

In years gone by, a rainbow was often used as a symbol of New Age spirituality. Perhaps some still see it that way.

The passing this week of Nelson Mandela has sparked countless references to South Africa as a “rainbow nation”, the implication being that people of all colours are now equally respected as part of that nation. The rainbow analogy might be a bit idealistic in this case because South Africa is still no paradigm of socially cohesive utopia.

Also in the news today, a row has erupted in Rome after Christmas lights with a rainbow flag theme were set up in the main shopping area “to commemorate the recent suicide of a gay teenager”.  Conservative Christians, quite understandably, are upset that the traditional celebration for the coming of Christ into the world has been hijacked for the purpose of homosexual propaganda.

The rainbow flag was first used as a symbol of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans-sexual) pride in California in 1978. Since then LGBT activists have used it extensively in a wide range of contexts, the presumption being that rainbows point to beautiful diversity. Sinners, of course, are always going to be incredibly diverse. There are many ways to express the idea that “I don’t need God telling me what to do.”

A brilliant rainbow set against a stormy grey sky is a thing of awe and beauty. I find it sad, but inevitable in a fallen world, that an aspect of God’s beautiful creation is being misappropriated in so many ways.

Even colours, just by themselves, are increasingly being used these days to promote various agendas. ‘Green’ has been claimed by the left-wing environmentalist lobby as if the colour itself was exclusively theirs. ‘Pink’ is being claimed as symbolic of homosexuality and other forms of ‘out-there’ sexuality.

In the end, it’s all about marketing and persistent manipulation of the media. That’s sad as well.

This blog is normally a response to outlandish things that have been said or written in popular media. But this time, I simply wanted to highlight (and challenge) the audacious use of something everyone loves for radical ideological marketing.

What does the rainbow mean for you?

Ethics without beliefs?

People on both sides of the abortion/ pro-life debate hold their views with a great deal of passion. But in the state of Victoria, the current law makes not even the slightest concession or allowance for the pro-life stance which is so important to so many of us.  
Under this law, doctors who object to abortion must refer patients to practitioners who hold no such objections. This is obviously an extreme violation of conscience.
Now Susie O'Brien has written an opinion piece in the Herald Sun (December 3rd 2013) in which she suggests that, if anything, the current law doesn't go far enough.
Coming to her conclusion, she writes:
"As far as I am concerned, doctors who have conscientious objections to abortion should put their professional ethics first and their beliefs second. They should not be practising medicine if they cannot put the needs of their patients first."
Really?
Since when are beliefs and ethics mutually exclusive things? Isn't the ethical basis of medicine all about healing rather than harming? And isn't it true that doctors who refuse to participate in abortions are precisely following what they see as professional ethics?
God's Word, the Bible, is very clear that human life is precious, even in its early stages in the womb.
Perhaps Ms O'Brien is not familiar with the research about the dangers of abortion for the women who have them. Or the fact that a human life is snuffed out in the process.
To claim that doctors who refuse to recommend abortions are not considering the needs of their patients is certainly a classic example of audacious journalism.

SHAMEFUL TACTICS IN PUBLIC DEBATE

The argument about “same-sex marriage” continues to radically divide people in Australia and several overseas countries. Arguments on both sides are passionate and determined. Both are legitimate according to the worldviews that underpin them. So how is it that the so-called “marriage equality” brigade can claim the right to brand and silence any voices raised in opposition to their agenda?

The manner in which this issue is being debated, at least in Australia, should concern us all. Free speech is under threat like never before. Of course I’m worried about the social implications of same-sex “marriage” but I’m even more worried about the lack of fair, clear-headed public discussion on the issue.

Public figures who dare point out that homosexuality is risky or unnatural are mercilessly condemned in the media, and often by the organisations in which they work. Respectable leaders have been sacked merely for expressing their opposition to same-sex “marriage”. Funny, I didn’t realise that the debate was already over, that one side had already been declared victorious, or that it was now unacceptable to support established Commonwealth legislation.

Actually, it’s not funny at all!

I would have thought that the onus would be on the advocates of change to make their case, answering objections with patience and understanding. So far as I know, no “marriage equality” campaigner has attempted to answer the fear that, under proposed legislation, two male paedophiles could marry and adopt children. I certainly have never heard a convincing rationale that allowing gays to marry would not open the door for polygamous or even incestuous “marriage”.  After all, the exact same arguments would apply.

But no.  Instead of answers, we get nothing but lies, empty platitudes, indignation and slanderous, condemning accusations of homophobia.

If Australians still value democratic principles, they must surely now arise and demand that lobbyists and media spokespeople be held accountable for uncivilised tactics that ridicule and seek to punish people with different viewpoints.