It's the end of the world as we know it ...

So the world is going into meltdown ... again.  Looking at many of the current headlines many commentators swing wildly from pessimism to outright gloom and doom (yes I know both are negative).  We're told the worlds financial systems are in meltdown, the wealth that many have been squirreling away for years is evaporating and free market capitalism is failing (which is why it needs propping up ... ???)

In Isaiah 6 we find the story of how the props, the hopes, the dreams of one man and his nation were knocked out from under them.  It begins with the words, "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple." (NIV)  King Uzziah (sometimes referred to as Azariah) became king aged 16 (2 Kings 15:1-6).  He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and his fame spread throughout the world as he became very powerful (2 Chr 26:8). 

His reign marked the height of Judah’s power. He fought successfully against other nations and exacted tribute from the Ammonites. Judah expanded westward with settlements in Philistia.  During the period of Uzziah’s reign, the nation prospered, and desert areas were reclaimed by water conservation. Jerusalem’s walls were reconstructed, towers were added, and engines of war were mounted at strategic points. A large army was also maintained. (ref: Britannica Online based on 2 Chr 26)

But then he died!

And all the hopes and dreams of Judah were knocked out from under them.  The nation was in despair.  Isaiah's hopes that under Uzziah's leadership the children of God would turn from their corrupt practices had come crashing down around him. In his despair he cried out to God "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord."  It took the collapse of the man-conceived notions of power and prosperity to turn Isaiah's focus back to God.

But this was no "same old same old" revelation.

Isaiah "saw the Lord seated on a throne" - the symbol of rulership and authority.  Isaiah had to realise that God was the king over all kings.  It was God's authority that would prevail and could be trusted.

"high and exalted" - God was over all.  God's authority was not on a par with mans authority.  His authority was above anything man could ever conceive of.  Not only above and beyond but also of greater good and wisdom - it was exalted!

"the train of his robe filled the temple" - there was no room for anything except the presence of God.  Isaiah needed to see that in his life there was no room for reliance on anybody or anything but God.

What about you today?  Where is your reliance?  Have you been caught up in the philosophies and ideologies of man?  Paul wrote, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8)  In this time of panic and meltdown are you able to see God?  Is it forcing you to reassess your values? 

The truth is that Jesus said, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."  (Matt 6:33) Then he went on to explain the kingdom of God: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it." (Matt 13:44,45) 

What do you hold in your hand that stops you from taking hold of that treasure, that pearl, that promise of God?  Are you willing to give up all your dependancies?  All your philosophies?  All your financial guarentees?  Can you let go and seek first God's kingdom, his ways, his promises, his truth and allow him to be the one who fills the temple of your heart??

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Abortion in India - the debate has begun

Finally after years of passive acceptance of abortion being normal, the media is fueling a debate on abortions role in society. Historically Indian society has favoured the birth of boy's over girls. With the widespread use of ultrasound for sex determination (despite being illegal) this has led to a massive imbalance in the male:female ratio in many parts of India. The above linked IBN article begins:

"The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected Niketa and Harish Mehta’s plea to abort their 24-week-old foetus, which the doctors say may have a congenital heart defect. The Court ruled that a predicted disability is no ground for abortion.

The Mehtas argued that they believe they won’t be able to afford to care for the baby or endure the trauma, and, therefore, they should be allowed to terminate the life of their unborn baby.

But is abortion a matter of parental choice?"

A number of questions arise from these observations for Indian society to grapple with:

• Is abortion a matter of parental or even personal choice?
• Indian law prohibits abortions post 20 week foetal growth. How old is too old to abort a foetus?
• Is disability, whether predicted or confirmed, a ground for abortion?

My personal answers:

• No - ultimately our personal choice must come under the law of God. I am yet to find a Biblical reference condoning the killing of another human for personal gain - whether financial, pleasure, selfish or otherwise. The vast majority of abortions in India are carried out with only selfish motives. Our actions as Christians are intended to give God glory. Aborting a foetus gives God no more glory than the terrorists who planted bombs in Bangalore, Ahmedabad & Surat this past week.
• Day 1 - There can be no time limit on when it is acceptable to abort a foetus. If God considers a child worthy enough to be born then who are we to legislate that it is not?
• No - I have a child who at 12 weeks of gestation was predicted to have a genetic abnormality. The doctor at the time insisted we have an amniocentsis to confirm the prediction. His comment, "If we know for sure the child has Down Syndrome then we will not make so much effort if there are complications at the birth." We changed doctors. As I said before - if a child makes it to full term and is born then obviously God reckons they are good to have a go at life. Some make it a few days, some a few months and some years. My son is an extraordinary blessing both to us and to all who meet him. He has a love of God and a freedom of worship that is rarely seen in "normal" people.

Debates like the only beginning in India can be couched in terms of personal justification or Godly conviction. Christians in India - stand up and be heard!

Humility and Diplomacy

The third of my ponderings is regarding Humility and Diplomacy.  I believe many in the Christian community confuse the two terms and rather than stand up for what is right and say it straight, they try to make themselves appear humble by being diplomatic.  I believe this misrepresenting of the term humility has contributed to a wishy washy form of Christianity which fails to confront when it is necessary.

In the Bible a number of words are used for humble and humility (eg. Strongs 6031,3665,6038,7807,6041,5013,5011,5012) The general flavour being along the of:

• to depress literally or figuratively or be depressed, in mind or circumstances
• to bend the knee; hence, to humiliate, vanquish:--bring down, into subjection, under, downcast, condescension, abase, cast down
• human and subjective (modesty), or divine and objective (clemency):--gentleness, humility, meekness

Interestingly a modern definition of the word humble is: having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.  A far softer definition than the bible uses.

The word diplomacy or it's Greek root 'diploma' does not actually appear in scripture although there are various instances of diplomacy through treaties and becoming "all things to all men."  Because the confusion lies with our modern understanding of diplomacy I will use a dictionary definition: The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way.

Let us also note that the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 does not include humility.  Neither does Jesus mention 'the humble' in what we call the Beatitudes in Matthew 5.  James 4:6 and 1 Peter 5:5 refer back to Proverbs 3:3 which says, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."  In fact when we consider the use of the word humble in the Bible it is usually used in regards to mans relationship with God and not with each other. 

And yet we have become so self obsessed that even humility is taken to be in regards to each other.  In Philippians 2:3 when it says, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (NASB) it is saying that in your humility towards GOD consider others better than yourself.  We need to reread the scriptures with this premise in mind: BEING HUMBLE IS ALL ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

• Luke 18:14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
• Ephesians 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
• 2 Corinthians 12:21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.
• Philippians 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

So becoming humble is recognising and acknowledging our position in relation to God.  It's not about us!  So why are we obsessed with being politically correct ie diplomatic?  If we acknowledge our position in relation to God we are also recognising his relationship both to us and the universe.  This should be the standard of our convicitons and not our relationship with each other.

Don't try to make yourself appear humble by being diplomatic - sometimes you just have to say it how it is.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Sin

Continuing my considerations in the aftermath of a moral failure of a pastor friend let me look at the second in my list: SIN.

As I spent time on the phone with my friend God kept bring scriptures to my mind:

1 Samual 16:4 "... The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Romans 3:23 " for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

In this God clearly spoke to me with a vision of black and white.  You're eyes are either on God or they are not.  I shared with my friend that when I was living in India, and beginning to see my ministry to Muslim students take off, I had a motorcycle accident that left me unable to walk for 10 months.  During that time of recovery I spent many hours with God - reading his word, praying, writing worship songs.  I am not saying God caused me to have the accident so I would be forced to spend time with him.  However the accident did come at a time when my eyes were off the Lord.  My focus was on the ministry and not on my God.  You could say my ministry had become my God.  It is a danger we all face throughout our lives - other things, even the Lord's work - becoming the focus rather than the Lord himself.  This is sin.

My friend had a moral failure because he took his eyes off the Lord and became preoccupied with the church.  Repentant, he is now spending great time with God.

The black and white is simply that:  Your eyes are either on God or they're not.  For God sin is sin.  Whether your sin is a moral failure or cutting  corners as you work God just sees it as sin.  "Man looks at the outward appearance"  and says this sin is worse/greater/more henious than that.  But "the LORD looks at the heart"  and what is the truth of our hearts?  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

The question is never whether one sin worse than another, rather the question we need to ask ourselves is, "Am I repentant sinner?"  The promise is clear: " For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 6:23)  Why through Christ Jesus?  Because "everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10:43)

Don't fall into the trap of looking at the outward appearance.  Sin is sin.  Given the right circumstances and situation I am just as likely to sin as the next person.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Church Governance

As I process a sad situation with a pastor friend of mine who has had a breech of pastoral standards (moral failure) I'm left considering four issues:

1. models of church governance
2. sin
   
3. Christian confusion between humility and diplomacy
4. The boundaries of Spiritual Family

This entry is a brief look at my perceptions concerning the first issue.

First point to note is that my friend was pastoring a church in a Baptist Union.  Their model of church governance is congregational.  Therefore concerning congregational life Baptists hold that:

1. The will of Christ for each church is to be found as the Holy Spirit brings direction and conviction to that congregation gathered to seek his will in the light of the Scriptures. On this basis the members’ meeting is the final authority under Christ for a congregation. Finding Christ’s will through the members’ meeting involves mutual counsel through the exercise of the members’ gifts and learning from the experience of other congregations.  
2. Christ gives leaders to his Church. It is the duty of the local church through the members’ meeting to recognise and affirm Christ’s call to such leaders, and to set them aside to serve, thereby charging them with the responsibility to lead and delegating prescribed authority to lead. Mutual accountability is to operate between leaders and church.  
3. While not in any way diminishing the autonomy of the local church, it is appropriate for Baptist churches to cooperate in a Union of Churches in which it is essential for all member churches to practise mutual care, support, and accountability.

In his paper entitles, "Why I am a Baptist" Rod Benson, Senior Pastor of Blakehurst Baptist Church, acknowledges that, "if one stresses congregational government as a Baptist distinctive, one must also acknowledge that it has no overt scriptural basis." (emphasis mine)  So using scripture as our basis for modeling our church governance (as Christians it would make sense yes?) let's turn to the new testament and search for the passages where people are appointed into positions of leadership.  I have categorised these in two ways: "who is appointed?" & "who appoints whom?"

WHO IS APPOINTED?
Five groups are identified as being appointed in scripture: Deacons, Elders, Apostles, Representatives & Judges.
Deacons:
Acts 6:2,4

Elders:
Acts 14:23
Titus 1:5

Apostles:
1 Corinthians 12:28
Ephesians 4:11

• The first apostles were appointed by Jesus: Mark 3:14
• The next was Matthias proposed as one of 2 candidates by the gathered believers but chosen by casting lots then appointed by the apostles Acts 1:23-26
• Additionally Paul (Rom11:13), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), and James (Gal 1:19 - Jesus' brother not the James appointed by Jesus) were referred to as apostles.  (Andronicus and Junia are referred to in Romans 16:7 as being "eminent among the apostles" which can legitimately be interpreted as them being apostles)

Representatives:
(When the congregation were in doubt over theology they appointed representatives to appeal to the apostles and elders:)
Acts 15:2

Judges:
(When the congregation had petty disputes Paul instructed them to appoint a fellow believer (no matter how young in the faith) to judge between them:)
1 Corinthians 6:4,5

WHO APPOINTS WHOM?
God ultimately appoints every leader and gives gifts to all. However specifically scripture relates that he appoints certain people & that he delegates responsibility to appoint to others.
God appoints:

• apostles,  1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11
• prophets, 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11
• teachers, 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11
• workers of miracles, 1 Cor 12:28
• those having gifts of healing, 1 Cor 12:28
• those able to help others, 1 Cor 12:28
• those with gifts of administration, 1 Cor 12:28
• those speaking in different kinds of tongues, 1 Cor 12:28
• pastors, Eph 4:11
• evangelists, Eph 4:11
• overseers,  Acts 20:28

Apostles appoint:

• elders, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5
• deacons, Acts 6:3 (NB.  The Greek of this verse uses the words 'seek out' and 'appoint' reading thus: 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;)

The body of believers chooses (NB. still don't appoint - that is still the role of the apostles):

• deacons, Acts 6:3  (from Matthew Henry's Commentary: They therefore desire that seven men might be chosen, well qualified for the purpose, whose business it should be to serve tables, diakonein trapezais--to be deacons to the tables, ... The persons must be duly qualified. The people are to choose, and the apostles to ordain; but the people have no authority to choose, nor the apostles to ordain, men utterly unfit for the office)
  

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
NB: The new testament makes a clear distinction between overseers, elder and deacons:
overseer
1985 episkopos ep-is'-kop-os from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):--bishop, overseer. see GREEK for 1909 see GREEK for 4649 see GREEK for 1983

elder
4245 presbuteros pres-boo'-ter-os comparative of presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specially, an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian "presbyter":-- elder(-est), old.

deacon
1249 diakonos dee-ak'-on-os probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands; compare 1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):--deacon, minister, servant. see GREEK for 1377
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

It would appear to my reading and limited understanding that the concept of congregational governance is not scriptural.  Of course if we want to throw out that parts of the bible that refer to positions of governmental oversight that we don't like or have never been taught about (eg. apostles, prophets, etc) then we remove the God delegated responsibility they had in appointing church leaders. 

The concept of the congregation appointing or electing elders, pastors or even deacons would appear to my mind to be an erroneous reading of scripture.  Whilst the body of believers has the right to choose men to be put forth as candidates to become deacons they are still appointed by apostles who can over-ride the congregational choice if they feel the person is unfit for the position.

As I see it whilst the local congregation has it's eyes on the local situation and must deal with local issues, the apostles and council of elders (presbytery) watch over the greater body and must see the big picture.  Appointment must be on the basis of appointing people with the right giftings into the the right congregation at the right time until such time as their giftings are no longer needed and someone with more appropriate giftings for the current situation should be appointed to take the church through the next period.  The apostles and council of elders because of their oversight, their big picture analysis, are uniquely in a position to make these judgements and thus appointments.  This is therefore impossible for independent local congregations and, in the case of the Baptist Union where you have mostly autonomous local congregations.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

An Australian Miss

After
* almost 10 years of marriage
* 3 children born in 3 countries in the space of 3 years
* 2 passports
* 14 houses in 8 cities in 5 countries
* countless months living on other peoples grace in their houses
* reams of bureaucratic paperwork

Usha finally became an Australian citizen at 3pm on 12th March, 2008. As is typical of Usha she was extremely nervous! However as an indication of how loved she is she set a record for the number of friends who turned up (with children) to witness her big event.

Photo's can be seen here.

Malaysian politics and the fear of democracy

It is interesting to me to read the response of economists to the recently concluded Malaysian election.  For the first time in it's post independence history the ruling party no longer has the 2/3 majority it needs to be able to unilaterally alter the constitution.  Proponents of democracy have lauded this development as a huge step forward in Malaysia's development towards a fully functioning member of the democratic communities of the free world.  However this headline (Malaysia's polls shock rattles investors--economists) takes an interesting turn on the euphoria.  The article begins:

Weekend elections that have reshaped Malaysia's political landscape will reverberate in the stock market and could dampen investor confidence, economists said Sunday.

How interesting!  A greater degree of democracy could shock the stock market and dampen investor confidence.  Quoting Chua Hak Bin, a Singapore-based economist with Citigroup the article goes on to question "whether the development projects under the previous state governments will continue."  One would presume on the evidence of countries such as the USA and Australia that a strong opposition, especially one which controls a number of states, is the bedrock of a strong democracy.  Incoming leadership desperate to our perform the previous authorities.

However the article goes on to outline their reasons for concern:

• investors may be concerned that the results could trigger political and racial instability
• With the Chinese and Indians voting for the opposition, you raise the question if Malaysia's fundamentals are intact and whether there will be racial violence
• It is due to concerns of political uncertainties and whether there will be unrest.

Is it possible that economists have managed to perceive, al beit via a tangential route, the problems that besiege the heart of democracy?  Democracy attempts to make all men equal, to reconcile the racial differences.  However history bears out that no treaty has ever produced a lasting peace.  The imposition of democracy onto artificial nations has seen disastrous consequences over the centuries.  From the Hellenization programs of the Greeks to the formation of India, Rawanda & Russia.  All have failed to bring lasting peace, a reconciliation, to ethnic divisions.  In watching a recent movie about the partition of India a statement was made, "The war is never over."  It is a phrase that resonants with the failure of democracy.

Googling this phrase brings some interesting results.  Here is a sample:

• Commenting on the war in Iraq - When you occupy Muslim lands, the “war” is never over until the occupation is over.
• From the Hindu (Indian Newspaper) - The war is never over when the battle is done. The scars run deep.  (read the whole article it is worth the read)
  
• Author Loung Ung, a Cambodian survivor of the Khmer Rouge, on why she wrote the book "Lucky Child" - I want to let the world know that long after the guns have fallen silent, for survivors the war is never over.

Democracy itself can never and will never bring lasting peace.  It is a fallacy born out of human invention.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Dissatisfied with Church?

Do you ever get dissatisfied with church? I'm not talking about the feelings of 'the church not meeting my needs.' That's inward looking. I'm talking about being dissatisfied with where you are at with God. You know there is more. You want to be more like him here and now. But how much time do we waste in learning how to know him more instead of being more like him?

Over the past 18 months I have studied many of the controversies of the church. From Montanism to modern word-faith preaching. Trinity to democracy. The sabbath, Calvinism, tongues, bible-only. It seems to me that man has an incredibly ingenious way of inventing new problems for himself. If there isn't an issue to argue over then we need to make one up to feel like we are achieving something.

Before I was married my leader in OM, Pradip Ayer, told me a wise truth: Major on the major issues and not the minor ones. It is a lesson that should be carried over to our Christian faith as well.

Ultimately we all belong to one family as we are all God's children.
Hebrews 2:11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.

However within that family there is room for expression.
Read 1 Corinthians 12:12-27

It makes me cry to think that there are people out there that think their part of the body, their spiritual family, their church or denomination, is the only true part of the body of Christ. Most of the controversies listed above have resulted in groups forming to condemn the other position and proclaim that their position is the only way. Their congregations then become an exclusive club convinced that only they hold the knowledge of truth and the penalty for leaving is leaving the assurance of salvation. I have seen this across the board in Brethern, Baptist, pentecostal, Anglican, third-wave, whatever. This insidious legalism based on the philosophies of man doesn't care for denominational labels - rather they are the underpinning of its lies.

God has made us one family, one body. Within that we will find those who have similar expressions of what it means to be part of the family - we cal these gatherings church. However our particular grouping should never become exclusive to the exclusion of other parts of the body.

We should never attempt to be the Holy Spirit in other peoples lives.

Abdicating Responsibility

I met with a group of pastors recently and discussed the implications of having a new government with a distinctly anti-discrimination agenda. This is what they have termed their Social Inclusion Agenda. For example, the new Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, is Australia's first openly gay minister as well as Australia's first Asian born minister. Part of this agenda is to present homosexuality as a natural alternative to be taught in sex-ed classes in all schools across the country.

I don't want to get bogged down in the issues of homosexuality. What I do want to focus on is a comment made by one of the pastors.

"Parents have handed to the schools their responsibility to teach their children morals and virtues. We hand over the children and we hand over the school fee's and say teach my children to grow up."

The question must be: Who is teaching your children what is right and what is wrong?

• The teacher who lost their virginity aged 14 is not going to teach the need to keep yourself pure for your future spouse, because it condemns them.
  
• The teacher who aborted a foetus so they could remain at work is not going to teach the right to life.
• The teacher living in a de facto relationship is not going to teach about the sanctity of marriage.

As Christian parents we have the responsibility to model for our children and teach them what the Bible says, so they may learn to discern good from evil, right from wrong.

Another pastor told how his 13 year old daughter had come home telling how a girl in her class with an older boyfriend had been given condoms as a birthday present by her mother. If our children are not getting moral guidance from us then they will get it from others they trust - their friends and their teachers.

This abdication of responsibility is seen across society and is reflected in both government and Christian schools. The issue is not whether the government is attempting to legislate a particular morality but whether we as parents are actively teaching our children what God says is right and wrong. Not human rights but God's rights.

If we understand what Luther said when he described the two kingdoms - the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world - then we will have no choice but to accept responsibility for the moral upbringing of our children. We cannot ask those in the kingdom of the world to teach what is in the kingdom of God. We are in the kingdom of God let us therefore let us teach what we know is right. Let the world teach of the world and let us teach of God's ways.

Let me close with another quote from the pastor I started with.

"The gospel is offensive because it is absolute. Jesus said I am the way. Homosexuality is seen as a way but the message we share is the way. That is why it is so offensive to people."

The Aussie Election: a response

One of my favourite blogs is written by my brother in Singapore. If you want an intellectual critique on the politics and culture of south east Asia, in particular Singapore, then this is one of the best. In response to a post of his about the just completed Aussie election (which can be found here) I wrote the following response:

To an extent I think you are correct however 2 important things to note are:
1. In Western Australia the liberals won 10 compared to 4 for Labour with 1 seat remaining undecided (SWAN which is 50.01% to Labour as I write this). WA is the powerhouse of the Australian economy and the region where the benefits of macroeconomic growth has been best felt. Additionally it is where the AWA's (WorkChoice) were best utilised as the Mining Companies has to negotiate favourable terms to keep running. This flowed on to other industries so that in the NW school cleaners, who are on AWA's, can earn more than the teachers who are on EBA's negotiated by the Unions.

2. This was not an issues based election. There were no defining issues that separated the parties. Some will note climate change as an issue but didn't try to understand the Liberal policy which was very similar to Labour if you take out signing Kyoto. Some might say the IR laws was the defining difference however again the Labour policy has shifted so far from it's pro-union roots it is closer to former Liberal policy than not. The election was won by taking the emphasis away from the party and onto the individual. Australians are weary of Howard/Costello more than they are of the Liberal party policies. For this reason the Labour party ran a presidential style election campaign where the focus was on Kevin Rudd and not the Labour party. The advertisments were always a comparison of the two leaders - young and fresh versus old and stale. That this election was the "Me too" election bears out this fact. "Me too" on policy but "Look at me" on personality. People were weary of Howard/Costello and the only way to change was to change government. With the opposition saying, "We'll keep doing what they were doing," it made the decision easy for a lot of people. The proof will be in the coming months as we will see if the Labour party really has moved to a centrist position or whether it was simply using Rudd as the acceptable face of a still union dominated party.

You talk about the same fate befalling the former BJP dominated Indian government. I wrote about this at the time and noted that the economic upswing certainly improved the lives of many people, but the majority of Indians were still not middle or upper class. They were/are rural villagers or urban slum dwellers. They could see the impact of the upswing around them (fashion, increase in cars, increase in costs, etc) but they have not experienced it. They are the majority voters. In Australia's case most people are better off than they have every been at any time in the past. Unemployment is down, interest rates are still relatively low, people are living longer and generally get bored more quickly than ever before. It will be interesting to see how long Rudd's sheen lasts. I wish him well.

NB:AWA - Australian Workplace Agreement (individual); EBA - Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (collective)

Democracy - Should Christians Support it?

As the latest Australian election dims into the distance and the electorate celebrate the end of a largely uninteresting and dirty campaign from both sides of politics, I reflected on an email received last week from a good friend who is a Muslim leader in Melbourne:

With their bag of dirty tricks, the Liberals have really upset me this time and I feel compelled to add my bit!

Jackie Kelly is saying this matter is all a big joke and is blown out of proportion! A joke! Someone in Liberal chain of command must have commissioned the design, authorised funds to print and directed the distribution of this 'unauthorised' pamphlet. Why would volunteers be directed to distribute the brochure, using up valuable time in the last days before the election, for a joke?

I've had a gut full Liberal lies, deceit, and disdain for justice. Lies about unsanctioned war in Iraq and WMDs, children overboard scandal, GST, AWB, treatment of refugees with indignity & the Pacific Solution, arrogant treatment of Aborigines, ramming through laws without effective judicial review, apathy about climate crisis and environment, contempt for worker's rights, peddling fear, sly deals on uranium, etc, etc. These sins must be dealt with!

When voting, I urge people to have justice, truth and a global view in mind. Don't vote Liberal! (or National or for Pauline and the like).

On the spur of the moment, without much thought, I shot off a reply in which I said:

Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu

The question is not whether Liberal or Labour are lying - they both are and I won't be voting for either - the question is whether God is being given glory or not. Ultimately that is the only question that is necessary in anybody's life.

As I see it there are no major parties which are glorifying God - Liberal, Labour, National, Green, Democrat, etc etc. The worst sin of Israel was to ask God for a King - thereby supplanting Him from His rightful place as King over them and replacing Him with a man. In many ways we do no better in propagating democracy around the world. Man empowering man to make decisions reserved for God.

We live in times reminiscent of the last days of the Judges of Israel where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6; 21:25 The democracy we promote is responsible for the indoctrination of humanism into our society. Don't just not vote Liberal - don't vote for any party that does not glorify God.

That was my gut instinct reaction to what was written but it started me thinking more and more about democracy and how it actually fits in with faith and God's plans.

Let me state 2 things up front:

1. I find nothing Biblical about democracy. That is not to say that it is anti-biblical, just that democracy itself is not found in the Bible. Monarchies, oligarchies, timarchies and theocracy are all found in the bible but not democracy.

2. As I wrote in my reply I will reiterate here - Israel's great sin was to ask God to replace himself with a man King. Man wanted to rule himself. Without getting into a debate about the separation of church and state I believe there are parallels here.

Looking specifically at the word democracy it has it's origins in the Greek word demokratia (δημοκρατία) which means 'rule by the people' (demos - people (many) and kratos – rule/power). Whilst many look to the Greek city-states in 5BC as the birthplace of direct democracy, forms of democracy date back to the Sumerian's (Mesopotamia) and ancient Indus valley civilisations where the panchayat model of democracy continue to operate today at a village level. So the word 'democracy' affirms the rule of man and the origins of democracy, which ever place you credit it to, are in an idolatrous culture.

The various forms of democracy as we know it today began evolving through the rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland in the early 13^th century. However it was the during the Renaissance that democracy came to be both the embodiment of and evangelist for humanism. Prior to the Renaissance religion had been the dominant force for over one thousand years. The humanist philosophers of the Renaissance era looked for secular principals on which to organise society and found democracy in the ancient Greek literature. Since this time democracy has been associated with the progression of human rights.

Let me pause here and reflect on what democracy was and has become. It was a form of rule developed by man apart from God to legitimise his authority over himself. It has developed to become the propagation tool of humanism through the rallying cry of human rights. Whilst I do not deny the need for and legitimacy of universal human rights, I do not believe the basis of those rights can be found in the minds of men. Above and beyond the rights of man are the rights of God. However man continues to do as he has done since the time of Adam and sets himself up as the authority on life, the universe and everything. Human rule is not wrong 'per se' but when human rule tries to extend into the authority of God it becomes idolatrous. Anything that is considered a higher authority than God is idolatrous.

Given the origins and current understanding of democracy, two questions are raised in my mind concerning Christians and our relation to democracy.

1. Should Christians be supporting the ideology and propagation of democracy?

2. Is there any place in modern church governance for democracy?

In regards to the former, I think most Christians in the west have been so acculturated by humanistic democracy that no thought is given to it's legitimacy. Since the beginning of the 20^th Century democracy has been seen as the desirable alternative to, at various stages facism, communism, monarchies, and more recently Islamic theocracy. An us or them mentality has arisen where the least worst option has become the accepted form of civilisation.

We certainly see evidence of the rise of humanistic philosophy within the Christian community. Faith has become about what God has done for me, rather than how God's undeserved grace towards me glorifies himself. Church has become about whether or not I felt touched by God or whether God spoke to me through the message, rather than simply coming together to celebrate his greatness and give him glory. It is no wonder then that we see democracy as being the means for everyone to have the freedom to say to God – bless me.

But is there a better alternative that we, immersed in our humanistic mindsets, have become blinded to?

With regards to the place of democracy within church governance we find the congregational model of polity is closest in form to democracy. This form of polity though is acknowledged even by it's proponents as not having it's roots in scripture. It was developed as a reaction against the corruption of the prevailing polity of the time – the episcopal polity. So even within Christendom the rise of democratic church governance did not come about through God's word. Rather it was a human invention.

Of the models of church governance found in the New Testament, none of them are democratic in ideology. However if you hold a cessationist position on the gifts of the Holy Spirit then you will by very definition deny the model of church governance put forth in scripture and seek to replace it with one of mans own design.

I have only scratched the philosophical and theological surface here and another day will delve deeper into this.

Don't get too excited

So tell me! I have just imported all my past blogs from one of my other blog sites to here so don't get too excited thinking I've suddenly had a major typing incident. I don't tend to post too often but when I do I write a lot. I'm almost finished a blog entry about why democracy is not something Christians should promote and hopefully will get that up on Sun or Mon. In the meantime read on.

back at it again

must be about time to revive this blog - tomorrow

"God wants to make you rich!" ??

Let me begin by laying down what I do and don't believe:

* I don't believe in prosperity doctrine.
* I believe tithing is an old testament command and us in the new testament have to live by an even higher standard.
* I don't even believe the finances you give into the kingdom have to go to your local church.
* I don't believe in taking verses out of context.
* I also object to taking verses from scripture that were part of specific prophesies at specific times for specific people and applying them almost as a threat for today - Jer 29:11; Mal 3:8-10

So now I've ruffled a few feathers let me explain.

In 2 Corinthians 9 Paul makes reference to a financial gift, an offering for the saints even.

6 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written, "He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever."
10 He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God; 12 for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God. 13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others; 14 while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!

Notes:
v8 God supplies all we need why? - so that we may always abound in every good work.

Now remember that this chapter is about finances and here is where prosperity doctrine gets it wrong. You don't sow financially to reap the financial benefits for yourself whether you are member or a pastor. You sow in faith what you have made up in your mind to give (v8 - note nothing about 10% here). You reap in accordance to what you sow - sparingly or bountifully - again remember this chater is about finances. but why do you reap - so you can sow more again. Here I don't necessarily mean to your local church. v9 says that he who scatters abroad and gives to the poor - his righteousness endures forever. hmmmm ... I guess that isn't the local church then ??

v10 makes the statement that the finances come from God and it is he who will supply and multiply our resources.

Let's go to Luke 19 now. Lk19:11-27 tells the story of the king who goes on holiday and gave his servants money to deal with while he was gone. When he returned one had increased 10 fold one 5 fold and the other nothing. He had hid the money in fear. The king was furious and said:
22 He said to him, `I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?' 24 And he said to those who stood by, `Take the pound from him, and give it to him who has the ten pounds.' 25 (And they said to him, `Lord, he has ten pounds!') 26 `I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.'

I'm not saying this passage refers directly to finances but the principle is there. God has given us all that we have. There is nothing that we can give him back that he hasn't already given us (except our obedience) and that includes our fincances. I'm not saying that if you give you will get richer. NO! When you sow what you have into his kingdom you reap the return for sure BUT IT STILL BELONGS TO HIM.

Go back to 2 Corinthians 9:11
11You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God
Another translation says: You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occassion. You aren't enriched to go out and spend it on yourself. NO! Sure enjoy life - that is scriptural - but when the king comes calling for it you must be generous on every occassion.

v12,13 for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God. 13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others;

The reason that we sow and reap, the reason that we give any offering at all is not because God tells us to tithe, is not because some demented prosperity doctrine advocate tells us to, but because it gives glory to God. It causes others to praise God. It strengthens the faith of others and encourages them causing them to long for you and pray for you (v14).

Who? What?

So I am in Singapore now. Three things that have either left me scratchin my head, laughing or both:

1. The American TV show - American Idol has spawned a mirade of syndicated copies around the world. Now India has Indian Idol. Who was the idiot who didn't change the name??? The concept, the idea, the semantic of 'idol' in India is so totally different from that in the west. In a land of millions of idols you'd think they would have the sense to change the name.

2. I was under the impression that throw away plates were designed so you didn't have to wash the real deal. Now in Singapore I have discovered plastic plates made to look like throw away plates. Hmmmm ... imitation throw away plates that you have to wash. I can see that making it big at the Hilton.

3. man I wish I could remember what number 3 was. When I remember I'll write it down...

->TBD

Whose authority do we bow to?

My thought today were in part in response to a BBC World Click Online slot where people were responding to an earlier program on freedom of speech on the internet. And also a reflection on a piece by Pastor Ray McCollum which I will include at the end of this post.

The Click Online narrator asked the question whether, if we are going to regulate what is available online, who or to what authority do we allow to police this and more to the point, who will determine what is acceptable and what is not. Obviously each government is going to have individual ideas on what is acceptable and in good taste and what is not. Iran will differ from the USA, and China from South Africa. So who do we allow to be the authority on our beloved www?

The idea of free speech also came up on the BBC website as it considered whether the posting of the gruesome beheadings of the foreign hostages in Iraq should be allowed or not. Also who would view these murders. I liked one post which in essence claimed that it only takes one viewing to understand the totally depravity of these people. One viewing to understand the palpable fear that grips the victim. One hearing of screams to understand the horrific pain. But the second viewing is merely entertainment. I agree. I saw one, It was enough. I do not need to see any more.

These people were around long before the USA invaded Iraq. The methods were in use by these same people, but not given the coverage until western foreigners became the victims. For people to claim that this is a direct consequence of the war in Iraq should view one of these gruesome video clips, take a history lesson or two, and maybe leave their own country for a year or two and live in a country whose basic societal structure has not been founded on Christian principles.

But my thoughts today are not about free speech. It is about who is our authority, or more correctly who do we allow to be our authority. One of the great things about living in India is to see states like Bihar which demonstrate that there is a very very fine line between democracy and anarchy. In the west we want to live in a society that has laws and is regulated but only to a degree. We don't want these rules to impede our personal freedoms. And often the people who commit crime, do so knowing that it is illegal but do it because it is expedient for them. This reminds me of many of my Muslim friends in Lucknow who would not consider something a sin unless they were caught. (Sins against God were different - they ones they were talking about were sins against others.) Teenagers often push the boundaries of legality because of the prestige it brings among peers. Even generally law abiding citizens will break what they consider innocuous laws (how many people do you know who speed?) This of course can also be seen in the form of the USA foreign policy. It has been stated by Bush that he will always act in the interest of the USA. If that means dropping an atom bomb (think Hiroshima), then so be it. If it means invading Iraq in what is generally acknowledged to be an illegal war, then so be it. I once read that laws in some parts of the world are considered suggestions more than imperatives.

In the Old Testament of the Bible there is recorded a time where judges ruled Israel. And towards the end of that time it is written that, "every man did what was right in his own eyes." Hmmmm ... how dissimilar is this to what we see around us today? Let me close today with the article from Pastor Ray. It is part 3 of a series of his called "7 Principles of Spiritual Authority." Check out his website at http://www.pastorray.com

-->TBD

In the first three studies in this series, we laid the foundational understanding of the various levels and dimensions of authority. We saw how they relate to each other. Now we can draw some practical conclusions about spiritual authority as it relates to the Christian and the local church.


1. Never obey any authority that grieves the Holy Spirit, contradicts the Word of God, or violates your personal conscience.

Some parents tell their children to shoplift. Some bosses ask their employees to lie. Some husbands demand behavior from their wives that violates their conscience. Some church members are expected to submit to Pastors or Leaders in matters about which they (the members) have no peace. Do parents, bosses, husbands and Pastors represent authority in our lives? Yes! Are we to submit to them? Yes! But does that submission transcend the "higher powers" God has put in our lives? No!

2. Obedience is behavioral; Submission is an attitude. So submission does not always imply obedience.

I can refuse to obey and still be submissive. If my employer instructs me to do something that violates the Word of God and my personal conscience, I can refuse to obey and still maintain a submissive attitude. Being a submissive wife doesn't mean obeying every whim a husband may put forth. I have been asked to do things by my spiritual authority that gave me no peace. I respectfully decline. That is not being rebellious!

3. All submission to spiritual authority in the Kingdom of God is voluntary.

Legitimate spiritual authority understands that submission can never be extracted or enforced upon someone else. When children are growing up, parents have the right to demand respect and obedience from their children. Bosses can require certain procedures, dress codes or conduct on pain of severance of employment. Civil authority "bears the sword" (Romans 13:4) of law enforcement. Refuse to obey and they can put you in jail or even shoot you.

But it is not so with spiritual authority!

The moment someone "UN-volunteers" to submit to spiritual authority, the game is over. The only right I have in the lives of our church members is that which they choose to give me. And that varies from person to person. Some folks trust me with their lives. I have to watch what I say to them or they might risk life and limb to get something for me. Others simply come to church each week and listen to my sermons. The greatest honor one can give me is, "Just tell me what you want me to do." And I better be careful how I handle that! In the next Good News, we'll show you why this is always the case.

India as the next superpower

This posting is in response to an email I received in response to my first blog posting. I'll post his email first and my response second.

--> TBD

hi THEByleDuct,
nice thoughts ....
here's a message from one to another ....
tell me what you think ...
regards,
paul
BOMBAY DREAMS
by James Boric

Tomorrow, I will catch a plane to London and then fly
straight on to Bombay.

For nine days, I will be meeting with some of the most
powerful businessmen in all of India. I want to confirm my
suspicion that, over the next 15 years, India will emerge
as the next Asian Superpower.

On paper it seems like a no-brainer.

With a population over 1 billion, a huge growing, well-
educated middle class, a stronger stock market, an
improving education system and a democratic government, the
foundation is set for some serious growth. Now I want to
see it for myself. And I couldn't have planned a better
time to visit this rapidly growing Asian country - from
both a financial and a political perspective.

Let's start with a little politics.

If you have been following the news at all in the past
three weeks, you must have heard something about the recent
Indian elections. What a fiasco.

In a major upset, India's Congress party (led by Italian-
born Sonia Gandhi) defeated the incumbent Bharatiya Janata
Party - which is credited for drastically improving India's
financial and economic situation. This shocked the
financial community.

Foreign money managers immediately pulled millions of
dollars out of the Indian market. They feared the new
government (the Congress Party and its leftist alliances)
would oppose the privatization of major Indian businesses -
- effectively ending much of the economic progress made in
the past and putting a damper on economic growth in the
future. As a result...

The Sensex (the major Indian stock index) fell as much as
17%. Trading had to be stopped several times during the day
on May 17. And when it was all said and done with, the
index ended the day down 11%. It was the single biggest
drop in India's history.

It was all doom and gloom - until a sudden announcement was
made...�

Sonia Ghandi declined the opportunity to serve as India's
prime minister. Instead she (and the Congress party)
appointed Manmohan Singh - India's former finance minister
- to take the helm. He accepted. And the market rebounded.
After all, the financial world in India loves Singh.

Singh was one of the central figures in modernizing the
Indian economy in the last 15 years - lobbying for state-
run businesses to privatize, improving India's central bank
situation, opening the country up for foreign investment
and encouraging free trade with outside countries. And with
him leading the new Indian government, I expect the economy
will continue to grow.

It seems the financial world agrees with me.

Since May 22 (the day Singh was officially appointed
India's new prime minister), the Sensex has recouped almost
all its losses - a good sign for investors. And although
you can count on the market to be bumpy in the short term,
the long-term prospects remain very bullish for India. In
fact, Goldman Sachs is predicting India's economy will
overtake the UK's by 2035, and by 2050 it will be the
third-largest economy in the world - behind only the United
States and China.

We'll see if they are right. But the foundation is laid for
rapid growth in India.

For the first time ever, India is no longer a debtor
country. It has forex reserves in excess of $116 billion.
It expects to double its college graduates in the next six
years. Its currency has been upgraded to "investment grade"
by Moody's, for the first time ever. Major Western
companies like Microsoft, IBM and GE are all opening
offices in India's main cities. And technology (phones,
computers and Internet access) is starting to make its way
into India's towns.

This is an exciting time for India - and for long-term
investors willing to put money in Indian stocks. And when
India does emerge into a legitimate superpower (eventually
growing into the third-largest economy in the world), I
expect a surge in one industry in particular...

When a country emerges from Third World to superpower, one
of the first industries to rise is telecom. And the boom is
already taking place in India...

- The number of cellular subscribers has just about doubled
every year since 1999 - rising from 1.6 million to 10.5
million now.

- The number of phone lines has increased fivefold since
1996.

- Internet connections have skyrocketed from 1.04 million
in 2000 to 4 million in 2003

- 84% of all Indian towns are wired for phones and Internet
access. Yet only five of every 100 people have them. In
other words, the room for growth is enormous.

Couple that with the fact that India has now opened the
telecom industry up to competition, and the stage is set
for explosive growth in the future.

Of course, there are no guarantees you will make money -
especially in the short term. Anytime you own stock in an
emerging country like India, you have to be prepared to
lose. But the rewards if you are right can be huge. In
fact...�

The best-performing foreign markets ALWAYS beat out the
U.S. markets - ALWAYS. For instance...�

In 1987 Japan's market rose 43.2% compared to the United
States' 3.91% rise. In 1989, Austrian investors could have
made 104.8% profits. U.S. investors only made 31%. And in
1998, Finland's market rose 122.6%. Again, the mighty
United States lagged behind - only rising 31.72%.

And if you want a more recent example, look at China. The
USX China Index rose 104% last year. That's impressive. The
Dow Jones only rose 25%. And I believe you will have the
same kind of opportunity with India in the next few years -
that's why I'm headed there now.

I will be staying at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay for nine
days. During my time there I am penciled in to meet with
several of the top executives in the country - including
people from Morgan Stanley, McKinsey, HDFC Bank, ABN AMRO
Bank and ASK Raymond James.

I will also be meeting up with wily traveler Dan Denning -
who has already been in Asia for the last three weeks.
Together, I expect we will cover a lot of ground, meet a
ton of great people and have some fun in the process.

Of course, I will let you know what I discover. I will
write to you from Bombay, and you can expect to read about
my adventures in The Daily Reckoning.


Regards,

James Boric
for The Daily Reckoning

Editor's Note: James Boric is editor of the small cap
advisory letter Penny Stock Fortunes, where he looks for
great companies at penny stock prices. James also writes a
weekly e-mail called the CXS Alert.

James is the most hardworking, knowledgeable Small-cap
analyst in the business... and his track record reflects
this! James has just flown to India to sniff out more great
companies. Be sure to hear what he has to say.


Paul,

I think there is a certain naivety in his assessment and rationale although I do agree with his conclusions. To call the Indian election a fiasco and a shock is in fact ridiculing democracy. The people spoke. He, along with most western commentators, presumed that (as is the case with western democracies) that governments presiding over strong economies do not get voted out. He showed his lack of understanding of the Indian situation by forgetting 4 major issues:

1. The then government was originally elected on a right wing Hindu fundamentalist platform which they then abandoned in the recent election preferring to campaign instead on their economic performance. They subsequently lost their grass roots support.

2. The former government was a coalition (as is the current govt) made up of convenience (ousting the previous govt) rather than of ideological agreement. This led to continuous friction and infighting which the electorate took note of.

3. Indian politics consists primarily of 2 major parties (Congress - secular & BJP - Hindu fundamentalist). The rest who hold the balance of power are regional & caste based. They do not campaign on national issues but on regional interests. Thus coalitions in government are not necessarily reelected on issues that are of national importance but on what is expedient to placate regional tensions.

4. But the biggest misjudgement of this article is the overestimation of the effect of a strong economy on Indian society as a whole. The upswing has certainly improved the lives of many people, but the majority of Indians still are not middle or upper class. They are rural villagers or urban slum dwellers. They can see the impact of the upswing around them (fashion, increase in cars, increase in costs, etc) but they have not experienced it. They are the majority voters.

Two major hindrances exist to India's becoming a superpower - karma (and all the caste rubbish & fatalism that goes with it) and a lack of excellence. What most of the world doesn't realise is that India is already a superpower. Just not in the sense that the west wants to measure it. Look at the reality:

* India is not only the worlds largest democracy but also the worlds largest *successful* democracy. The worlds so called "premiere democracy" - the USA - not only struggled to run a successful election last time around but also can elect the worlds most powerful politician with less than 30% of the total eligible vote in his favour (check Clintons 2nd election figures)

* When India conducted the nuclear tests in 1998, it managed to do it without any country realising what they were doing until after the event. They have kept themselves out of the IAEA and have not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

* The country with the largest English speaking population (English being the recognised global language) is India while the most populous USA state, California, has more Spanish speakers than English. An addition to this is the worlds largest circulated English newspaper is published in India.

* India produces more than 2 1/2 million graduates annually. This does not include those Indians studying overseas.

* Indians are the worlds 2nd largest diaspora after the Chinese (I would argue 3rd with the British 1st)

* Some of the worlds richest men are Indian - Premji Aziz the chairman of Wipro for example

The west equates superpower with strength militarily and economically. I have an article showing that earlier this year the USA held, at the time, secret 'war games' exercises with the Indian airforce. The purpose of this was to test the top USA fighters against the current crop of Russian built fighters. On EVERY OCCASION the Indian pilots out fought, out maneuvered and out classed their USA top gun opponents. As an economy India's strength lies not in it's overall purchasing power but in it's sheer size and ability to be self sufficient if isolated, something most western economies are unable to do (with the exception of Australia.) I have often said that if you could find a single product that every Indian needed at least once a month and you could sell it for only one rupee per piece you would be a very very rich man. One billion rupees every month means even with only 10% profit you would be making close to 1/4 million US$ every month.

Anyhow - yes I agree India will soon become a world superpower even publicly by the means of assessment that is accepted in the West. I also would like to meet these men the other James met.


-->TBD

And so we begin

This is the first attempt to put some recent thoughts down on page. This is an ongoing thought process but I am at the stage where I need some feedback. Actually there are 2 ideas here that have begun to merge so bear with me if this is a little all over the place.

The 2 thoughts began as a response to the war in Iraq as I looked into my motives for opposing it. What drove me to oppose the conflict?
- Was it my Christian faith?
- Was it my Australian sense of fair play - the USA is a super power and Iraq a little country what's fair about this fight?
- Was it a fear of the USA taking over the world - or at least acting as if it could if it wanted to?
- Was it a sense of outrage and helplessness that the USA was arrogantly defying the rest of the world and we couldn't do anything about it?
- Or was it simply that I was reacting in the manner that the worlds secular press wanted me to react as they portrayed the conflict according to their editors wishes?

I started to wonder - not why should I oppose the war but why shouldn't I support a Christian leader, IF his policies are not in conflict with the scripture. Now I should make one thing very clear here - I was not thinking and am not advocating the mindless, uncritical following of any person. That would be cultish. My first question was more along the lines of, and bear with me here:

If a Christian political leader has a policy that I disagree with, but is not defying or denying scripture should I oppose this? What if the alternative view has it's basis firmly in humanistic philosophy rather than in scripture? Which do I support?

If we consider the war in Iraq the evidence from intelligence that the leaders of the USA, Britain, Australia and a few others saw was obviously fairly compelling. Compelling enough that it would probably have passed a 2nd resolution in the UN authorising limited engagement al beit in a diluted form from that which the USA wanted. That the intelligence has since shown to be flawed is another story because I am looking at the decisions made based on the evidence available at the time. The evidence was obviously compelling enough that members on both sides of parliament in these countries authorised involvement despite overwhelming public opinion being against war. At least 2 of the leaders in this group are active practising Christians, Bush and Howard. These are men who, if you read their biographies, take their faith very seriously. They would not have made decisions without having taken it to God first.

Now consider that arguments against going to war. Without having access to the "sensitive intelligence" what did the worlds media and their "experts" base their opposition upon? Obviously there were snippets of information from experts who had been in Iraq previously. There was work of the weapons inspectors who found nothing but admitted they were often being led on wild goose chases and playing a game of cat and mouse with the Iraqi authorities. But there was also a very definite humanistic agenda being pursued by the worlds media.

History shows us that world order is established through the domination of one or more countries by another. War was used to establish territorial boundaries and bring peoples into submission. Often it is external but sometimes internal elements are used by external forces to achieve the same end (proxy wars). It is an ongoing method in many parts of the world. recently (or ongoing) in Africa - Rawanda, Dem.Rep. of Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan, etc ... In Europe - throughout the Balkans (Kosovo, Serbia, Croatia, etc.) In the west Asia - Israel, Syria, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, etc. In south Asia - India & Pakistan involved over Kashmir, insurgency in other parts of India, the Maoist movement in Nepal, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. In east Asia - the islands in the South China Sea, Tibet, Vietnam, Cambodia. The list can go on (Fiji, Colombia, Haiti, etc...) The USA in particular is partial to the proxy war senario as has been seen in Haiti and at various times throughout the cold war (Afghanistan, various place in Africa, ...) But we should learn from history and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

These days we have names for these situations. We call it ethnic cleansing and talk about communal tensions. We talk about human rights and democracy (whatever form that takes - USA, Singaporean, Westminster???) But where have our current understanding of these terms arisen from? Who decides what is a human right? Many of the stories we find in the Bible are gross violations of human rights. They demonstrate ethnic cleansing, often brutal, and usually commanded by God. Democracy is not even mentioned. People talk about Jesus being a pacifist and yet he caused huge upheaval and was obviously considered a big enough threat to the status quo have him killed. The following centuries as Christendom expanded was marked by both horrific persecution of the Christians and also uprising against the Roman authorities. Historians talk of only 2 sects of Judaism surviving the putting down of the Jews after the final uprising - one of these was the Christians.

And here is where my other line of thought merges in. I started wondering whether the emphasis on a "personal faith" that came about since the reformation has led to us no longer understanding the role of the body of Christ in the world. As the west has embraced humanistic philosophy it has also spawned the concepts of human rights and the rights of the individual. Subtly we have embraced this within the church as well. Again I am not saying that human rights are wrong and the rights of the individual are wrong. Not at all. But God is clear throughout the Bible that what he does, what he lets happen has nothing to do with human rights. It has nothing to do with whether we think it is fair or not. It has everything to do with God's rights and his justice. God often talks about dealing "for my name's sake." It is his name that is being defended. It is his justice that is being fulfilled. Yes God cares for the nations and different ethnicities - he created them (think Tower of Babel) after all. But he deals with them on a global scale according to his rights.

So what role does the church have in the world today? One of the mistakes of the Israelites is that they failed to destroy the high places as they entered lands. This then led to idolatry. These days the church in the west again puts this in an individualistic context - idolatry means money, fame, position, etc. But put it in a global context and we see that the groups that are fulfilling this command to destroy the high places are more often than not Islamic no Christian!! The Taliban destroyed the huge statues of Buddha in Afghanistan to the outrage of the world's humanistic masses. What about the great colonisers the British? How might India be different today if the Christian British destroyed the idols and temples they found in India? Idle speculation, yes, but I am prompting thoughts in my mind regarding the church of today. We focus on the individual at the expense of global issues. We object to Christian political leaders doing the same thing God commanded his people in the old testament to do. Which brings me back to my original question. If a Christian political leader has a policy that I disagree with, but is not defying or denying scripture should I oppose this?

Well I am sorry this is a long series of thoughts. But like I said the time had come to try and articulate some of the thoughts and get some feedback on whether I am way off the planet or at least half way there.

--> TBD