The love of the stranger

Conservative politics can have many failings. One of these is a tendency to turn racism and fear in the community to its own advantage. This is evident in the resurgence of conservative political parties in Europe. It has also been a feature of Australia's policy toward asylum seekers for many years now. Australia makes every effort to deter asylum seekers (this photo shows police boarding an illegal vessel and arresting its occupants).

As I was completing my read the Bible in 90 days plan, one of the themes I looked for was that of how we are to treat strangers. It was clear that God places a high priority on loving strangers, just as he does upon loving widows and orphans. Strangers often appear to be people who are "foreigners" and in need. Locking such "illegal immigrants" up in detention centers, as Australia does, does not appear to be consistent with the priority God places upon loving strangers. What do you think?

Post-election thoughts

I've appreciated a few of the blog posts I've read following the US election.

In A Four-Year-Old and the Presidency Steven Nichols comments on the changes in the US over the last 40 years. I am personally grateful that the US has come so far in the area of racism. I also agree with Nichols that it is not good for us to only see one colour. Voddie Baucham, a black man himself, also comments on related topics in his post Its Not All Bad. 

Ligon Duncan's thoughts on Praying for Obama are excellent, particularly his call for those with the greatest differences with the President-Elect to cultivate a genuine love for him. The points in this post are a challenge to me, as I pray too infrequently for Australia's leaders and don't include some of the points that are suggested! Duncan's link to Al Mohler is also well worth reading. 

Blog posts on the US election I like

I've shared some of my concerns about Evangelical responses to the US election. Now I want to share some blog posts that have seemed sweet and refreshing in comparison. This is not because I agree with all the conclusions of these authors. Rather, it is because they have not dismissed the implications of the Bible for how we make decisions about candidates and voting. They have explored the ways the Bible may apply.

John Piper wrote Why a Woman Shouldn't Run for Vice President but Wise People May Still Vote for Her.

Jasmine Baucham tackled the argument that It's not A Religious Issue.

Jennie Chancey wrote Of Salt Losing Its Savor, and ended with an inspiring call to gospel living.

The Botkin sisters wrote of why We believe Sarah Palin’s example poses a more serious threat to Christian womanhood than more liberal feminist icons such as Hillary Clinton.

If you have come across blog posts you believe are an honest attempt to apply the Bible to the issues brought up in the election campaign, and which you enjoyed, please share them in the comments section.

There is a standard for your vote

During the US election campaign, I have often thought about the willingness of evangelicals to explain away the implications of some parts of Scripture. This can be evident on both sides of politics. Modern evangelicals have both an obsession with the importance of the Bible, and a curious disregard for it. Apparently reading the Bible is essential to spiritual life. On the other hand, evangelicals are prone to arguing that the Bible does not speak to particular areas. They usually do this through explaining away or ignoring the parts of the Bible that do apply. This has been evident Christian responses to this election campain.

Some go as far as arguing that Christianity does not have implications for whether you vote Democrat or Republican. Why? Being a Christian is about the gospel. This statement implies that the gospel comes to us in some kind of nebulous vacuum. It comes contextless, and devoid of any compelling claim upon our decisions. It is odd, then, that God chose to accompany the gospel with a Bible. Jesus came to us in the context a wealth of literature that gives us a very good idea of what his will is when it comes to rulers and laws. It may be that neither Democrats nor Republicans fit the bill, but we have been given standards we can use to evaluate both. Yes, you are still a Christian if you sinfully support wicked rulers. You are a Christian who needs to repent, and who can rely on the endless grace of God given in the gospel.

Why Palin doesn't transfrom McCain

I know, I know. I'm meant to be minding my own business. I promise I've stopped worrying.

I just had to link to this article because Alan Keyes says it so well. Palin's powers as VP are such that she will not suddenly transform McCain into the evangelical's version of a knight in shining armour.

But won't Vice President Palin be able to prevent President McCain from making decisions that conflict with Christian conscience? I can think of no example of a morally principled, but unequally yoked, running mate who achieved this result once in office. The American republics are based upon Constitutional principles inconsistent with a divided executive. Therefore, lieutenant governors and vice presidents have no reliable say over the chief executive's decisions and actions. This would be especially true of someone like Gov. Palin, who will enter office with no strong national constituency of her own beyond the possible influence of those supposed moral leaders whose unprincipled support for McCain has already placed them at his mercy.

Minding my own business

When I first read about Mrs Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential pick, I said "what does conservative mean anymore?". If conservative can mean a woman with a four month old running for a full time plus job then it can mean anything.

Less than a week later, I'm more amazed than ever. You see, a whole lot of pastor/theologian types whom I thought held entirely different ideas about family arrangements are trying as hard as they can to step around (or even justify) Palin's choices in order to fully endorse her.

Frankly, one either believes that God has called Christian women to fulfill their home and family responsibilities before pursuing other things or one doesn't. It is not like VP is a part time job that one can do after all else has been done. It is, rather, a job that would dominate any person's life.

I can understand, say, Right to Life wholeheartedly endorsing Palin. She is, after all, excellent according to their criterion and sphere of responsibility. However, a minister of the gospel is responsible to uphold the word of God consistently and apply it without prejudice to current events. What has been stated pre-Palin should still apply, surely?

As I've been contemplating these things, I've realised that I'd be better off minding my own business. It may be interesting to watch middle aged pastors attempt delicate double backflips over principles they've previously stood for, but it is hardly edifiying.

I'm not an American citizen, I'm not voting in these elections, and I'm not reliant on "conservative" pastors to form my views on women's roles. There are, after all, numerous Biblical passages I can turn to for unchanging principles that don't do backflips. So I'm going to try to stop following this controversy, and turn my mind to other things.

Zimbabwe's election: Take 2

In a previous post I mentioned my thought that a positive outcome in Zimbabwe could give us hope for other African countries. Well, obviously there has not been a positive outcome. The African community is also failing to strongly address the many failings of the electoral process and Mr Mugabe's regime. Read African Union treads softly to find out more. The response of South Africa's president has been particularly disappointing.

I know next-to-nothing about Africa yet, but I am quickly learning that my hope for Africa is only in God. Zimbabewe's opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai seems fantastic, but he is not the "answer". God is. Mr Mugabe has stated that only God will remove him from office. He's right, so we'd better keep praying!

I’m sorry, even a nanny state can’t do it all

Australia’s indigenous population faces many challenges. Some of these are disadvantages created through systematic government policy over many decades, including dispossession, genocide, and removal of children. Others are a result of the choices of indigenous people, in response to “white culture” and to traditional practices. In recent years there has been a revival of concern about past abuses. This culminated in an apology to indigenous Australians.

Indigenous people, sampled as a group, are likely to live 17 years less than other Australians. This has been called a “national shame”. Christopher Pearson’s article in The Weekend Australian, “Nanny’s unhealthy regard”, slams this idea. Pearson rightly points out that smoking, alcohol abuse, and poor nutrition are matters of personal choice.

“The first thing to note is that these are all matters of individual choice rather than anything that could remotely be considered an occasion of national disgrace.

“In a pluralist society, the nanny state can deplore people’s lifestyle choices but Aborigines are as entitled as the white proletariat to tell nanny to mind her own business.”

Australians are right to be ashamed of the actions of some of their ancestors. At times with good motives, at times with evil ones, many settlers and government officials of the past abused the indigenous people of Australia. Responsibility must be taken. At the same time, modern Australians must be realistic about the contribution that the choices of indigenous people make to their disadvantage. I’m sorry, but the nanny state can’t make up for that.

Zimbabwe's election

I am eagerly watching the Zimbabwean elections, hoping for a change in government there. The situation is truly tragic. Since Zimbabwe borders on South African, my husband's homeland, we have a special interest in the country. If Zimbabwe could improve, this could reduce the refugee problem in South Africa. If the land grab in Zimbabwe can be recognised as mismanaged and unwise, it may reduce the likelihood of similar events occurring someday in South Africa. If proper democratic procedures can be observed in Zimbabwe, it will give us greater hope that South Africa can continue to have an orderly and non-dictatorial government.

You can read the comments of one Zimbabwean on the country at BBC World News. I found her response to questions interesting, especially this one . . .

Q: What is wrong with our African leaders - especially the so-called liberators?

Jeffery Sebunya, Kampala, Uganda

This is a difficult one. I guess we the public feel we owe them for our freedom, and we tend to worship them instead of viewing them as mere political leaders who are answerable to us. We watch and stay silent as they amend constitutions to give themselves more and more power until the country becomes a fiefdom. So it's not entirely the leaders' fault, we also contribute by staying silent when we should speak out.

The writer also gave honour to God - how wonderful! Will you join us in praying for Africa?

Will Zuma be the new South African President?

This morning Dave and I discussed South African politics in the light of the recent election of Jacob Zuma to the African National Congress (ANC) Presidency. The ANC has won every election since the end of apartheid, so he is very likely to be South Africa's next president.

The Australian published a profile about Mr Zuma, noting that he happily admits to being a polygamist. He is also an alleged rapist and has been confronted with charges of corruption.

In "Profile: Zuma charms wives and nation", The Australian notes that Mr Zuma has four official wives and several girlfriends.

He is undoubtedly a master politician, one of the few who can combine township militancy and traditional African values - one day punching the air at an ANC rally, the next dancing in a leopard-skin loincloth at a Zulu village ceremony.

To say the least, my husband is concerned about this situation in South Africa. This morning in our conversations we were reminded that we need to avoid worrying about tomorrow. Concerns about changes that will lead South Africa toward dictatorship may well be unfounded.

Michael Spicer, of Business Leadership in Africa, said: “It is more a question of style than substance. Zuma cannot possibly deliver all he has promised but he represents a desire for change. I don't think economic policy or government would in fact change very much.”

Whether or not Zuma will change the South African political landscape dramatically, one thing is certain. He is not a godly leader. Will you join with us in praying for godly government in South Africa?

Election day!

This Saturday is Federal election day in Australia.

I would like to draw your attention to Jacquie Petrusma whom I believe is an excellent Tasmanian candidate for the Senate.

I am grateful that the Family First party provides an option for those of us who find it difficult to vote for anyone who opposes Christian values.

Why not vote for someone who shares our love for Christ?