the vicar's blog about the world 2004-2006

Book Review: Responsible Dominion: A Christian Approach to Sustainable Development. By Ian Hore-Lacy. Regent College Publishing. Vancouver. ISBN: 1-57383-342-8

A book by the Director of Public Communications for the Word Nuclear Association may be suspected of being a public relations exercise for the nuclear industry. Certainly nuclear energy is part of the discussion and receives strong support in the book.

But it would be a mistake to write the book off (or buy it) just for that reason. Ian Hore-Lacy is a Christian who has spent most of his working life involved with mining (CRA – Rio Tinto) and environmental issues. His main arguments have to do with Christians pursuing a truthful analysis of the problems we face and seeking solutions that have a biblical foundation – especially solutions that will enable the world to feed its billions of poor and starving inhabitants.

Hore-Lacy takes issue with many of the assumptions and aims of modern environmentalism. He sees the green movement as basically a religious movement which opposes human activity as generally harmful to the environment which is given a kind of semi-sacred status.

He sees much of the debates as a clash of value systems. One of these he defines as a physical construct by which the environment is understood scientifically and rationally, and the other as a moral construct in which ‘nature’ is understood metaphysically, having intrinsic spiritual values. Many people will hold to both these systems in different proportions or in different circumstances.

However one of the great strengths of this book is that it seeks to describe a Christian stewardship of creation. It departs form the Romantic view of the environment and seeks to understand God’s purpose in creation and the ways humans should look after and use the creation they have been given.

The book has an excellent section on creation, the role of science and the nature of human stewardship of the creation. This is a refreshing study that focuses on practical matters and leaves behind the ideological debates about creation and science. Hore-Lacy discusses land use, national parks and mining, food production, GM, water resources and some of the impacts of globalisation.

Because the book aims to discuss sustainable development he has a fair bit to say about minerals, energy and renewable energy sources. He also discusses recycling, waste management and the likely long term availability of fuels. He compares alternatives sources of renewable energy and, yes, he makes a case for nuclear energy as part of the solution to sustaining human life on the planet.

One of the helpful aspects of the book is that it takes issue with the impact of ideology on science. Many assertions are made in the name of science, which are not scientific but rather ideological or religious (in this case green religion).

Overall for those interested in the environment and sustainable development or who want another perspective on the emerging debate about nuclear energy, this is a good book, written from a biblical perspective and challenging many assumptions of the green movement.

What makes a family a family? I have been pondering this question in preparation for the seminar next Saturday. Is a family defined by its location – those who live in the same house? Is it defined by blood – those who are related to each other? Is it defined by fatherhood – all the people who are related to the father?

Of course family has many meanings and many contexts. In the Old Testament the common term was the “father’s house”, because what we might call families were seen in terms of households with a male at the centre. In the Greco-Roman world the picture was similar. The extended household included all the people who lived there, including servants. The common Greek word is “house” meaning the household – all the people who live in the house.

This might give the impression that family is defined by fatherhood (Eph 3.14,15 is one of the few places where this way of speaking occurs). The surprising thing is that the Old Testament contains another way of looking at this. If you read through the OT you could get the impression that family was well and truly defined by patriarchy. Certainly this is a characteristic way of operating.

But right at the beginning of the OT is an entirely different perspective. Quite surprising given the later development of family practice. It describes the beginning of the whole human family. There are two accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis, and both tell basically the same story. In the beginning there is a human. In the first story human means male and female, that is male and female together make up what is human. In the second story there is one human and from that one another human is made. The two are called man and woman and both originate in the one flesh and come together to form one flesh again.

The woman and man are not made separately – as it were from two different piles of dust. They are made as one in the first account, and made from one in the second account. In the second account the first human does not make the woman, although he does name her. But even in this case the name is an acknowledgement of where she originates.

I think this gives us a clue to the meaning of family. Here is family at its core. A singularity made up of two people who are joined together in a union of their flesh.

So is family the same as marriage? No, this is just the beginning of the story. But marriage may be the foundation of family.

“How do you reconcile the Old Testament with scientific progress, eg God creating the world in seven days versus the Big Bang theory?”

Another interesting question is how we can reconcile scientific progress with the New Testament. The Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain in scientific terms how the material universe began. But science has produced other theories which have resulted in practical benefits such as the ability to travel in space, or GPS tracking for golfers. But alongside the benefits are harmful effects such as global warming.

The New Testament describes a world which appears to have lost its way and is in decay. And our increased technological skill is adding to the decay. One of the questions this raises is whether the material universe has a purpose or end, or whether it will just end. Is progress possible?

Both the Old and New Testaments give humans power over the material universe – not a lot to be sure – but enough to have what Genesis calls dominion. The dominion humans are given has the purpose of filling the earth and subduing it. They are given the rule over all the living creatures (Gen 1.28).

Reconciling scientific progress with this commission affirms the wonderful ways in which humans have used their intelligence. But it also highlights their poor ethics, bad morals and inner corruption. Humans have both succeeded and failed to do what Genesis said they should do.

But does it make any difference anyway? What kind of an end does creation have? Was TS Elliot right,

“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”? (The Hollow Men)

Evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, and Christians both think the creation is going somewhere – they just disagree about where and why. For Dawkins evolution is not purposeful in the sense that it has a predetermined goal it is heading towards, but it is purposeful in that the goal it aims for is the survival of the gene.

Christians on the other hand understand that God has a great purpose for the creation. It is waiting to be set free from its confusion and decay and find its perfect form in a new creation (Rom 8.19-22).

So “scientific progress” is a servant not of the gene but of God who has given humans the responsibility to care for a creation which one day he will transform into a “new heavens and a new earth”. Creation is something God values. And so when we try to reconcile scientific progress with the Bible, the Bible calls us to account for how well we have cared for his world.

Do you ever wonder what to do about the beggars that look through your car window at the traffic lights? Yes of course. Some people give money, some don’t.

Some would like to find the pimps and do something drastic with them instead. And these are just the simple problems to think about in the macet. There appear to be no end to the social needs we see, and perhaps no bottom to the depths of the problems. Maybe better to wave your hand and keep reading your novel.

But members of All Saints aren’t satisfied with that. Some are here precisely because they want to contribute to a solution to some of the massive problems facing people in developing countries. Others are here for other reasons but while they are here they want to do something. And some of us live here all the time and are committed to helping the needy.

But what to do? One of the great things about All Saints in particular and the Christian Church in general, is that we are part of a world-wide fellowship in which different ministries have developed. One of us on our own cannot solve the problems of street beggars, but we know that there are groups who have gathered expertise, resources and enthusiasts to have a go.

On display on Sunday in South Jakarta will be about 30 different ministries which are making an impact as Christians, in different ways and on different needs. For foreigners especially these are strategic and valuable friends. We have the opportunity to put our money, our prayers, and in many cases, our energies behind these brothers and sisters.

The coin out the window at the traffic lights is not much more than an admission of a need (and perhaps of a responsibility). But what about a serious contribution to KDM or an orphanage, or a gospel proclamation ministry? Or a serious gift of time to a support ministry in relation to one of these groups?

What a fantastic opportunity to use what we do have to make strategic contributions to vital ministries. It is a wonderful inheritance that All Saints has, that we have so many excellent ministries we can so easily connect with to make a difference.

Some years ago a friend who was not a Christian lent me a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. I think my friend was trying to help me understand why he was not a Christian. Certainly Richard Dawkins’ books have played a significant role in supporting a secular (non-religious – one might almost say anti-religious) world view.

Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His books are part of a concerted attempt to make a theory of evolution focussed on genes understandable and acceptable to the general public.

And they are part of a great debate that got under way in the 19^th century and has continued with variations ever since. Christians are caught up in the debate because the debate is about origins – how things came to be and where (if anywhere) they are heading. And Christians have the book about origins (that’s what “Genesis” refers to – the beginning).

But was it with a Big Bang and if so what happened after that? Some have tried to put the six days of creation of Genesis 1 alongside a current understanding of cosmology. On the other hand debate continues in the scientific community about the processes involved in evolution, both at the micro level (eg, the conditions necessary for amino acids and proteins to appear) and at the macro level (cosmology and the expansion of the universe – this week’s Nobel Prize in physics had to do with this).

Some Christians want to use Genesis as an alternative scientific text in competition with science. But while Genesis helped lay the foundations of empirical science (because it described an ordered and purposeful world – which could be the subject of consistent observations), it was not itself a product of empirical science. So what is it?

It is about beginnings but not so much about process. It states a view of beginnings which is not open to scientific observation. That is, that God began everything. Is this in conflict with science? It is in conflict with the views of some people who work as scientists. But the observations of empirical science are limited. What can we say about what preceded a Big Bang? Or what brought it about? We could posit a series of Big Bangs and Black Holes, but that only defers the question. There are some things science cannot know. Indeed, as Godel showed, it cannot even prove its own axioms.

The danger in this debate is that science is pushed across the line into ideology (science religion), and theology is pushed across the line into science (religious science). Scientific hypotheses have to be tested scientifically, and theology has to be understood theologically. The truth in both cases comes from the same God.

The death of Steve Irwin, the “Crocodile Hunter”, has stirred up feelings of grief all around the world. If the media is to be believed (yes John and Alistair we always believe the media), his death has provoked more interest in the US than in Australia.

I suppose many Australians saw him as a kind of caricature; a larger than life exaggeration of some aspects of the Australian personality and attitude to life. Australians laughed with him and at him – but in a good natured way.

But why have so many people, from all around the world, joined in expressing grief over his death? The manner of his death was certainly unusual – bizarre almost. We sympathise with his family and feel for his children.

But there is more to it than that, and more than that he was a public figure – not all public figures evoke that kind of response. Another one who did was Princess Di the anniversary of whose funeral was this week.

Perhaps both of them represented an image of life. Despite their faults (even Germaine Greer wrote an article pointing out Irwin’s: “There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress.”), they attracted us by the energy and freedom they seemed to have.

But these public outpourings of grief seem to come from a well of grief which is bigger than the particular occasions. It is not just the death of Steve Irwin that people are grieving over. Perhaps we grieve every day for big and small losses in our own lives, but don’t have any way to express them. And even when we do, the form of public grieving in western countries is often so stage managed and clinical that no outward grieving takes place.

It is interesting to compare this with David’s grief over the death of Saul (2 Sam 1). We might have expected that the death of his rival would be a cause of celebration (the Amalekite messenger thought so). But David and all his troops mourned. David sang an elegy expressing publicly the grief of the nation.

Public grieving takes different forms. Arrays of flowers at the home of the hero seem to be the current form in some western countries – plus lots of discussion in the media and on the internet. But whether these are adequate ways of grieving is another matter. They may be expressions of a need to grieve together as a people, for a loss they share together, they may in fact express the loss of (or a longing for) a “together”.

It is hard not to read the Old Testament and think of modern politics. The famous speech by Samuel about what would happen when they had a king raises cynical smiles because it sounds just like today. Those who want a centralised government have to pay the price.

But is there more connection between Samuel and us than just taxes and conscription. The request for a king was an expression of a desire to be just like the other nations. Israel did not want to be different any more. It did not want to keep itself to the ways Yahweh had set out. It wanted to have the same kind of power as the other nations. It also wanted to be able to use their gods. The king, especially, represented a way of being protected and strong.

The gradual coming together of small tribal groups in coalitions for self defence and economic gain is a normal part of human history. It is still happening. In the time of Samuel, Israel was a grouping of tribes, a kind of extended family federation, but not a centralised nation with one leader.

Which did God prefer? The interesting thing is that he agreed with Samuel that having a king was a bad idea – for the reasons outlined by Samuel (1 Samuel 8). But taxes and conscription were not the most serious reasons by a long way. The really serious thing was that by having a king they would be abandoning Yahweh as their king. They were exchanging a God who had saved and rescued them for a king who may or may not rescue them. They were setting out on a new national career with their hopes set on a human leader instead of God. Very brave we might say.

And yet although God said it was a bad idea, he let them do it. And he gave them a really good looking human type king. Saul was just what they were looking for. God made a top of the range choice for them (top of the range as far as human leaders go anyway).

This is where the story gets more scary. If God says this is a bad idea, and still lets them have what they want, and gives them the best of what they want, what is God doing? Is he weak, or sentimental, or perhaps he does not care any more. Or is he bringing a kind of judgment on them? In fact God said to them at the time, that when they got into trouble and their king could not rescue them, that God would have nothing to do with them. They were on their own.

So did the new system turn out well? Hardly ever. At least not until Yahweh himself became the human king.

Robert and I have been having a dialogue on the All Saints Forum about this week’s earthquakes and tsunamis. He started the conversation on Tuesday with this:

Indonesia seems to have been having a lot more than its fair share of natural disasters over the past 18 months since the Boxing Day tsunami. Is it just a statistical fluke of living on the ring of fire and an unfortunate side effect of the way this planet is designed to work, or is God trying to tell us something, and if so, what?

Mmmm, how much is a fair share, and is this kind of thing shared out on the basis of what is fair? Fair to what, or to whom? I suppose the question also asks whether it is shared out at all or whether these events are purely results of natural movements within a closed universe.

But even if God was not directly involved - not directly orchestrating the earthquakes - if they were just consequences of the structure of the physical earth we live on, God may still want to tell us something through them.

Although I think he has already told us everything we need to know about him and us and about how to live our life. Quite apart from God, humans have worked out a few things from these earthquakes and tsunamis- eg you could die suddenly; you or your friends could suffer sudden and devastating loss; you may be saved from death or loss by circumstances that you had no control over.

But is God trying to tell us something? Yes certainly. He has been trying to tell us the same thing for ages - turn to him, love him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength. Give up trying to control your own life and let him be the one you trust. Ask for his forgiveness for treating him like a no-god. Take seriously his warning that he will call you to account for how you have responded to what he has told you.

As for the earthquakes - I don't think God tells us anything new through them - but they may be jolts to bring back to reality those of us who think we have the right and the ability control our lives ourselves.

And I think the disasters can be opportunities to act like God - opportunities for compassion and care.

What do you think? All Saints folk can join the conversation on our Discussion Forums.

I see that the World Council of Churches has begun a study partnership with the Vatican about conversion practices. A recent report from the study group rightly condemned unethical means of conversion, including taking advantage of the vulnerable. It was set in the background of both restrictions on religious freedom around the world as well as poor conversion practices by some groups.

The group included 27 participants from Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Yoruba religious backgrounds, and affirmed “the freedom to embrace another faith out of one's own free choice.” It also said that, “All should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others".

Certainly in many parts of the world there is strong competition for the loyalty of followers of different religions. In Africa, Asia, and the sub-Continent major religions (and anti-religions) are clashing, not to mention the strains within the same religion between different groups.

The idea of abandoning the obsession of converting others, even allowing for the hyperbolic language, is perhaps an obsession of the Enlightenment rather than of people who are enthusiastic for their faith. Whether the apostle Paul had an obsession or just a commission from the Lord Jesus, may be debated. But that is not to say that some methods and practices may be inconsistent with the message being communicated. Many of us are aware of the cringe factor when we see hit and run missions go into cultures which the missionaries don’t understand, or even respect.

On the other hand whether we seek the conversion of others depends partly on how we see our own allegiance to our faith. Is it just a private religion? Is it just something we benefit from, which others may not, a bit like exercising or playing tennis? The modern and post-modern western world is comfortable with a supermarket approach to religion, where each can buy what suits them from the variety of faiths (or non-faiths) on offer (not unlike the religiously pluralistic world of the first century!).

However Christianity (and Islam and Judaism for that matter) is not primarily focussed on what benefits us. Although wonderful benefits are promised to those who put their lives into the hands of Jesus, it is the Lordship of Jesus and the glory of the Father that dominate the Christian message. It is difficult to have an allegiance to Jesus and not want others to give him glory as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as well – for his sake – because he has sent us to make people his disciples.

One of the tensions in the modern world seems to be between tribalism and globalisation. Different cultural and national groups struggle with the impact of the spreading global culture, which at the moment appears to be mostly western. In some ways it is like the battles fought by Gideon and Barak and others.

We call these people judges, but they were really tribal leaders, in some cases gathering a coalition of other tribes against various threats. Overall the threat they faced was the Canaanisation of Israel. Wherever the tribes settled they were affected by the local customs and religions. It did not take too long before they adopted local names for Yahweh, and included local practices in their worship. Rather than overcoming or keeping separate from the global Canaanite religious culture, Israel was overtaken by it.

The result was that God gave them over not just to the religious practices of their neighbours but to their economic and political control. Playing religious games at the shrine was one thing, being attacked, robbed of crops, livestock and women was another.

While God raised up these tribal leaders from time to time in response to the cries of his people, overall the people took no notice. They reverted to the Canaanite religious culture as soon as the leader died – in some cases with the help of the leader who had rescued them!

It is a great wonder that God persevered with them. One reason he did was because this was the group through whom he intended to carry out his purposes to bless the whole race.

Now that those purposes have come to fulfilment in the death and resurrection of Jesus, is Jesus’ group doing any better in the face of modern globalised religious culture? Some would claim that the modern tribal leaders who are gathering other tribes in coalitions to oppose what they perceive as threats to their culture are in the tradition of Gideon and Barak – and perhaps they are right.

But the big silence in the stories of the Judges, is that no one deals with the enemy inside. The main problem with Israel in the time of Gideon and Barak, was not the Canaanites or the Midianites, but the syncretism in the heart of Israel itself.

Amongst Jesus’ group in the modern world, it is our seduction by the global (western) culture that most enfeebles our life as his people.

A newspaper article this week listed the most generous Australian donors to charity in 2005. The top 5 gave amounts ranging from AU$12 million to $37 million to various charities. Church charities received the most. The top five recipients were Catholic ($16.2 billion), Uniting ($2.4 billion), Anglican ($2 billion), Salvation Army ($642 million) and Baptist ($606 million).

However the donors were also listed in terms of the percentage of their personal wealth they gave away. The top 5 in this group gave between 2.2 per cent and 4.3 per cent of their personal wealth to charity (only one of the big donors was in this group).

The source of the story was the Business Review Weekly, so presumably it was only interested in the big end of town – what the wealthy do with their wealth. But was it fair to use percentages? What from one point of view seems to be a large amount, from another appears to be quite small.

Christians who have read this far will already have recalled a number of sayings of Jesus related to these matters. However the article used the word generous a number of times. What does generous mean? Can it be quantified? Is bigger more generous? Is a bigger percentage better than a bigger amount? Or is generosity a matter of the heart and mind?

A significant stream of Christian thought affirms the idea of percentages. The source of this goes back to a misunderstanding about tithing in the Old Testament (as though tithing was the whole or main part of giving in the Old Testament). I think tithing (or percentages or any kind), misses the heart of giving in the Old Testament (and certainly in the New Testament).

The thing that strikes me when I read the Old Testament, is the idea of open-handed generosity. Closed fists and open hands symbolise a heart attitude which is like (or unlike) the way God treats us.

So $40 million dollars may certainly be the expression of a generous heart, or of a guilty heart, or of a manipulated heart, or of an attention seeking heart. Just as $4 may be any of these. Only the giver really knows.

But why do Christians want to give? Partly because they share the character of their generous Father; because they are grateful for the generosity shown them every day; and because of their compassion.

While I was on leave I read The Tyrannicide Brief*, by Geoffrey Robertson an international lawyer who has been involved in cases against General Pinochet, has helped train judges trying Saddam Hussein and is well known for his work in the area of crimes against humanity.

The book is about John Cooke, a lawyer who was given the brief by the “Rump” parliament to prosecute Charles I. This was the first time that a King of England (or anywhere for that matter) had been tried by a court of law. It appeared to be contrary to Magna Carta which gave the English the right to be tried by their peers (who is the King’s peer?).

Nevertheless the Parliament (or at least those whom Captain Pride allowed to attend the session) set up a High Court of Justice specifically to try the King and others for crimes against the people of England perpetrated during the civil wars. Ironically, a few months before the trial, European nations had concluded the 30 years war with the Treaty of Westphalia, which among other things, said that a prince could not be overthrown for violating the liberties of his own subjects. Unfortunately for Charles England was not a signatory.

The charge was based on the idea that the King had usurped his role as protector of his people and had “command responsibility” for the deaths that had resulted from the civil wars. It had created a new offence of tyranny. But it was a short-lived, and long before its time innovation. It was not until September 1946 that international law moved away from the Treaty of Westphalia. Even so, according to the book, “running a despotic government which commits widespread human rights violations is not currently condemned by the law of nations.”

One of the interesting things about John Cooke was that he was a deeply pious and humble Puritan. His faith, and desire to follow the calling that God had put on his life under-girds his whole life right up to his horrible death at the restoration of Charles II. He introduced many reforms into the practice of law. He affirmed the cab-rank rule, that lawyers should accept any brief, with suitable payment, irrespective of the person or the crime. He urged lawyers to limit their income and after earning a certain amount to do pro bono work for the poor, or to give the money away!

It is a fascinating story for many reasons, but especially to see how a man’s faith and integrity was worked out, in his workplace, under very difficult conditions which ultimately led to his death.

I have had some discussions recently with another member of All Saints about helping the poor. We both agree that this is not only a good idea, but it is a Christian idea. Jesus repeated the Old Testament idea that we should love our neighbour.

He also gave a clear answer to the question, who is our neighbour, by turning the question around and describing the person who acted as a neighbour. The neighbour is the one who shows mercy.

But life is often more complex than the Samaritan found it. For example, helping the person left on the side of the road has the potential to become a means of earning a living. One could develop an organisation that helped people on the side of the road by gathering donations from others who did not want to help them directly.

For some, helping the poor makes then feel good. For others it gives them meaning and significance to their life. No doubt the poor are helped, but are they being used as well? It is one of the problems with altruism that sometimes the good deeds are done for the benefit of those who do them.

Loving our neighbour and showing mercy to them, can get hijacked by the needs and motives of the givers. The work can become more important than the people. But for those of us who seek to act Christianly, a more complicated question concerns how to show the love of God. For the Samaritan the need he met was straightforward and limited. The man got better and presumably got on with his life.

In the modern world not everyone gets better so quickly. One of the slogans of the caring agencies has been, “Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish and you feed them for a lifetime.” The implication is that we should help a person become self-sufficient.

An excellent idea. But is there any justification for it in the Bible? Or any example of something like that happening? If one stands back and looks at the idea, it has the potential for paternalism (and maternalism). Who decides that a person should be taught to fish? Or does the Bible encourage us to provide short term help only?

Perhaps the social and communal context of the Bible is so far removed from the modern world that it has little to say about how we go about loving our neighbour. Perhaps we just need to use our common sense. But the difficulty with common sense in the capitalist world is that it sometimes leads us to pay other people to love our neighbour for us.

Is this so bad? When the Greek speaking widows found they were at a disadvantage compared to the Hebrew widows, the apostles refused to get involved. They asked the church to elect other people to handle the distribution of food and to sort out the problem. Presumably an organisation developed to handle food donations and to distribute it fairly - at least until one of the organisers was arrested and killed and the others driven out of town.

A similar thing happened later when there was a drought. Paul took up a collection from the Gentile churches around the Mediterranean to send back to Jerusalem. No doubt there was some structure or fellowship network to make sure the aid was shared around in the best way.

Or not. If Judas was stealing from the money bag when he was Jesus’ treasurer, no doubt others did the same later. Perhaps that was why Paul had representatives of the churches accompany his collection.

Short term emergency help is one thing. Some needs are long term. In some parts of the world poverty is now firmly established as a way of life from which there seems to be no escape. Children growing up without parents need long term care. Not all extended families and communities are able or willing to care for them.

One of the questions for those with long term needs is whether the helpers are maintaining them in their need or whether a different kind of help may be needed. So some Christians get into advocacy ministries, or into positions where they can affect the structural forces that contribute to the primary need.

Jethro did this when he advised Moses to set up a better dispute resolution process. Paul did it for himself when he used the Roman legal system to seek protection for himself. And Esther did it for her people.

Part of the trouble for western care-givers is that the system that allows them to be able to provide care may be the same system that is contributing to the poverty of those they seek to help. So just giving money may be only part of the answer, and possibly not an answer at all.

One of the interesting instructions in the Bible concerns widows. Paul says that widows who are really in need should be properly recognised (1Tim 5.3).

His comment raises questions about the definition of a widow and about different kinds of need. I would have thought that a widow was a widow. But in the passage Paul seems to be referring to a person who is like an orphan – a widow without any family. Other widows should be cared for by their families and not by the church.

But then there are other distinctions. The widow who prays and puts her hope in God is distinguished from the widow who lives for pleasure. To be put on the list of widows a person must be over 60 and have a track record of good deeds. It is not clear in this passage what it means to be put on the list. It may not be about support so much as a kind of group of devout praying women.

So what about the other widows? The young ones and the ones with family are to take responsibility for themselves. Get married for example, do things that are helpful and productive, depend on their family support networks. Avoid idleness and gossip and undisciplined living.

As you read the passage it can sound harsh – and unloving. Although that may depend on the kind of background and politics one has been used to. And the kind of upbringing one has had.

Most Christians are not callous. Generally we are caring and eager to help people. Sometimes we are downright sentimental. But sometimes are desire to help is driven in part by our own guilt, or our need to be needed, or our desire to avoid further trouble and conflict for ourselves.

Recently there was a news item about a voluntary group of people who used online chat rooms to trap predators seeking to make contact with children. A TV program even got involved. However while commending the motivation, one police source said that it was a dangerous game. In this sort of work control was crucial, according to the source. By this was meant that the person must not let their own feelings intrude into the action.

Feelings can be helpful or unhelpful when it comes to loving. Sometimes the best help is done against our feelings of compassion. Sometimes it involves allowing the person to take responsibility for their own problems. Our help can sometimes take away people’s responsibility and so keep them dependent on us.

In fact in the 12 Step movement there is a flourishing group known in some places as Co-Dependents Anonymous (CODA). Co-dependency occurs when a person in need colludes with a person who wants to be needed. So although help is given continually, no change takes place. The same behaviour can sometimes apply to people who are involved with a person with a dependency (eg the spouse of an alcoholic).

The best help sometimes is not to rescue the person. Members of AA will say that addicts will not get better until they take responsibility for their behaviour. And some will not do that until they are at the very bottom. It seems callous and unloving to let a person reach rock bottom. But that is too simple a way to describe what is happening.

Loving these neighbours may involve giving them maximum opportunity to take responsibility for their own life. And this will involve the painful (for some of us) process of not taking responsibility for them (which means taking responsibility away from them).

These kinds of issues can be seen quite clearly in family and personal relationships. They are not always easy to see in the larger-scale contexts of welfare and poverty assistance. Some groups work intentionally towards helping people take responsibility. But sometimes the need seems so great that the best that can be done is maintenance help.

We may say “But what will happen if we stop doing this?” The implied answer is that something worse will happen. But it is possible that if the question is answered thoughtfully a different answer may emerge, one that may result in much good.

Another kind of question that can be asked is “Whose problem is this?” This also sounds like a hard question. But it can help us realise that the problem may be the responsibility of more than one person. And sometimes it can help us see that what we should do is not try to solve the problem but rather offer help to someone else so that they can solve the problem.

These questions are relevant at all levels of loving our neighbour. From the personal care we give to a member of our family, to how we give our money to the needy, to how we involve or don’t involve ourselves in other’s needs, to the way we make decisions about our Outreach projects, to the good causes we get involved in as advocates, to the way we involve ourselves in the politics of our country.

“Loving their enemies, praying for those that persecuted them, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison … not as an end … not as an end … but as a means … because it gives you entry into their hearts!”

So said a Christian leader some years ago. Is he right? Is caring for people a means to an end? Of course it is often done as a means to an end – and not just for the end of evangelism but for personal ends, or institutional ends.

One of the difficulties with this view is that many of these passages in the Bible link this behaviour with the behaviour of God rather than with the behaviour of the evangelist. This is the way God acts. He cares for the poor and the widow and the orphan – just because he is compassionate. He also makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust alike – because he is kind.

God’s people are to be like their Father. They behave the way they have learnt from him. It is not a means to something else, indeed it is not really even an end. It is just the way God and his people behave, although the end or purpose is for God’s people to continue the mandate he gave humans in the garden – to fill and subdue the earth, to make it a place where God and his people can live in harmony. That is why they talk like him. The extending of the blessings of God happens both by the toil of the humans and by their spoken word.

It would be a mistake to think that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked were part of a series of tests that one had to pass in order to be a sheep and not a goat. Rather they are signs of a family likeness. They show that we belong to the people who behave like God.

In this respect there is no difference between speaking the words of God so that Jesus is glorified and people find forgiveness, and doing the works of God so that people find healing and deliverance. Jesus saw that his words and his works were both indicators that the Father had sent him.

This means that it is easier to do this kind of thing if we are children of the Father, servants of the Lord Jesus, filled with the Spirit. These behaviours come from inside – from our character and upbringing, at least from an upbringing that begins with a birth from above and a character formed by the Holy Spirit transforming our lives by the Word of God.

When you read the paper or watch the news, do you sometimes feel you are reading a pre-fabricated set of secret messages? Not necessarily fabricated by the paper itself (although that is possible), but designed by whoever issued the press release to send coded messages to others.

The old spy books and movies made use of hidden messages in innocent newspaper articles or advertisements. I suppose such things may still be possible, but this kind of news is on a larger and more public scale than that.

Sometimes you wonder which audience this news is intended for; especially when we react with shock or opposition to a piece of news. It may be that it was intended for us. But it may be meant to send a message to a different audience. What angers us may placate others, and vice versa.

Of course we may believe that news providers just report simple facts and events. But probably we don’t believe that. We may think that selection of news is based on what sells papers, ie what will arouse the interest, fear, excitement, prejudice or loyalty of its readers. But beyond this simple idea there may be other factors, which the news provider has less control over.

Such as the ideas that are expressed in press releases and press conferences - and the events themselves. Why are these events happening now? Are they being orchestrated? If so who is orchestrating them and for what purpose?

As one stands back from the details of news reports and thinks about what is hidden, what is not reported, and also thinks about the kind of spin that is put on events, and the different ways the information impacts different groups, one can sometimes get the impression that much more is going on than we know.

Not that there is a master conspiracy anywhere, but that there are struggles going on between different interests and groups which emerge into public view only in part.

Sometimes, and perhaps now is one of those times, we can get the impression that significant forces are at work, not unlike the movement of tectonic plates. Those of us who only observe glimpses of these struggles can become afraid of what we do not know. We can also just ignore them and get on with our lives.

But Christians have been given clear instructions to pray. We are living at a time of significant upheaval, and prayer for our world, our neighbours, our leaders and all in authority is one of our big contributions. Christians want to pray because they know that the Lord Jesus is the head over all things for the sake of his body, the church. We do not need to fear what others fear.

Western Christians have long become used to hearing and seeing Jesus insulted. It is difficult go through a day amongst westerners without hearing the name of Jesus used in quite coarse and sometimes disgusting ways.

This is distinct from the lampooning and ridicule which is directed at Christianity. So far most public satire or ridicule in western media seems to be directed at Christianity as a religion or the church. Very little is directed at Jesus or God, although this may be increasing. The lingering influence of Christianity, at least in some western countries, is helping to restrain this trend.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are often mentioned in respect to this. However most western democracies have limits on free speech, for example in relation to slander and libel. And there are also self-imposed limits to do with speaking or writing in an offensive manner, limits usually imposed by the consensus of what the community regards as acceptable forms of speech.

Christians are very interested in language because their religion is a religion of speech. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is a speaking God. Jesus himself is the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit is the speaking Spirit who helps the prophets and evangelists speak God’s message. Christians are also interested in true speech. Truth and not lies are at the heart of the Christian faith. So we value speech which enhances language and not speech which degrades language, because language is the means by which we communicate the truth about God.

Christians are open to dialogue, discussion and argument about the truth of Christianity. But there is an increasing element of abusiveness in many of the attacks on the Christian faith. Together with the very common abuse of Jesus’ name in common speech and in movies, this trend continues to unsettle Christians.

One of our problems is that Christians have been told to love their enemies, to do good to those who persecute them, to bless those who curse them. And when some otherwise nice person insults Jesus by their coarse language, we tend to excuse it as just poor manners or ignorance.

But perhaps Christians should protest more. At least about things that are not so much direct insults to us, but which are actually degrading references to the living God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It may be one way to reduce the level of ignorance about Jesus.

A few people who visited other countries for Christmas reported that in some places the family Christmas service was updated with dramas or plays about what would happen if Jesus was born in the modern western world of 2005. It is an interesting question and raises many questions about our modern values and belief systems.

For me it raised another kind of question as well. Which is whether there would be a modern western world as we know it if Jesus had not been born when he was. In other words, to what extent is the modern western world a product of the spread and influence of Christianity? If there was no Christianity what would the world look like? How would it be different to what we know?

It is a complex question and different people will have different answers. Some will say that the absence of Christianity would have allowed Greek thought and science to develop. Others say that Christianity just took over Greek ways of thinking. But in fact Christian theologians radically changed crucial Greek thought forms about the creation and the order of the universe so that as a result Christians were eventually able to study the world as the creation of a rational creator.

Gone were the philosophical ways of thinking of Ideal forms lying behind the things we perceive in the world. Instead the foundations of modern science were laid. Of course this was not without the influence of Greek science, nor did it exclude the mathematics and astronomy of Arabia and China. But it did move forward on the basis of an ordered and rational creation.

Of course the Greco-Roman world was only a small part of the known world. Without the influence of the Christianity that world may have developed under the influence of animistic or monistic world-views. Or, as the Roman Empire came crashing down, it could have developed under the influence of northern European pagan world-views.

The absence of Christianity would have meant that various barbaric events peculiar to the Christian world would not have happened (at least not in quite the same way). Some would say that capitalism would not have developed. Systems of law would be quite different, depending on the extent to which the Roman system was able to survive.

So if Christ had delayed his coming until 2005, it would be an entirely different world he would have entered. What would a world without Christianity look like? Many western people are working towards such a world. But it will take a long while for them to root out the many foundations of modern western civilisation which find their source in Christianity. But then there are other parts of the world which have never had a significant Christian influence.

Have you found yourself feeling afraid recently and were not sure what it was you were afraid of? In the months leading up to Christmas, fear was one of the dominant themes in Jakarta life. Apart from the regular warnings not to go anywhere where other foreigners might be going, there were local warnings including new threats of kidnappings, murders, and various new ways of delivering bombs.

It is well known that people who have experienced, or even been witnesses to, a traumatic event, can suffer various reactions after it. Sometimes people make unconscious decisions to act in protective ways so that they do not suffer the same thing again. In some cases people make conscious decisions to avoid the same kind of trauma. But many continue to act on these decisions even when the likelihood of a repetition of such trauma is extremely small.

I am not sure how documented it is, but I think many of us act in this way about anticipated trauma. One can become so alert to danger that one is always on edge. And even if the warnings sound a little bit like the boy who called “wolf”, they have a cumulative affect which can be hard to recognise.

In some ways fear in the context of an actual threat is able to be transferred into some kind of action. The difficulty with potential threats is that the fear cannot be channelled so easily. There is no enemy to fight, and no obvious direction in which to run. Such anxiety can become neurotic so that we become obsessive about small things. Or we can see danger everywhere, or unconsciously take the fight to those who are not a threat to us.

Fear can be very debilitating, especially non-specific fear. That is the power of threat I suppose. So what can Christians do about it? Being alert and acting wisely when the threat appears real is a start.

But it is our thinking that is important. The scenarios that play over in our mind are what get the adrenalin running (and probably contribute to subsequent depression). How does a Christian’s mind help them? Perhaps this is a case for listening to Jesus’ words, “Come to me all who are weary and carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.”

Peter knew a lot about threats and his study of the Old Testament led to this advice, “Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.” (1Pet 3.14). He means that we need to have a clear idea who is in charge of our lives. Dangers will continue to come, many of them threats which we can do nothing about.

Perhaps he also remembered the words of Jesus, "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight. But even the hairs of your head are all counted. Do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.” (Luke 12.3).

Last week’s Boyer Lectures raised the question as to whether the Australian Parliament should continue to pray for this world to end and another one to begin. The Lectures are an annual feature on Australian national radio and this year are being given by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the first time a religious leader has given them.

It may seem a strange thing for a Parliament to pray for the end of the world. But Christians do it all the time. This Sunday, as we celebrate Advent Sunday, we will do it again.

Of course Christians are not praying for the world to end … and then nothing. They are praying for God’s kingly rule to come to its complete fulfilment (that is what the Australian Parliament prays when it begins its sessions with the Lord’s Prayer). The Collect (or prayer) for Advent Sunday asks that we may rise to the life immortal on that last day when Jesus Christ comes again in his glorious majesty to judge the living and the dead.

Such sentiments are contrary to the world view of most western people. The idea of final judgement calls into question too many of our relativistic ideas. And that there might be a last day, which comes about not as the result of some natural cataclysm, or human folly, but as a result of the intervention of Jesus Christ, is a shattering blow to our attempt to gain meaning from what we do in the present.

It is possible to think about the future in escapist and sentimental terms: as a time when things will be better, when the clouds drift away and the sun comes out, when the hard times will be over and we can rest. Or alternatively in nihilistic terms. But the Christian view of the future is different.

The future is really the end. But not the end as though there was nothing more, but the end to which we have been living and working and hoping. The completion, if you like. And because the future is the finally fulfilled completion of what we have been living for, it is that future end which gives meaning to what we do now.

Drillers and geologists may look back on a week’s work and say they worked hard and did well. But the meaning of their labour is connected to the millions of barrels of oil that will flow from the wells when the project is complete. That is the end.

In the same way when we come to the end, we will find that God’s kingly rule is finally complete, and we will then be part of a new world in which all the promises he made have been realised, and the life we tried to live is now being lived majestically.

A month or so in Australia was a mixed blessing. It was terrific to have clear skies and some cool weather. But the increasing regulation of society stood out quite starkly after a long absence.

I suppose Australians are not alone in being subject to more and more rules and regulations. It appears to be a characteristic of the new global world.

In the 1830’s a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States to study its democracy, by which he meant the situation of broad social equality he found there. He thought such democracy was the fulfilment of Christianity, but thought it had two dangers which might undo it. One was slavery and the other was excessive individualism which he thought would lead to tyranny.

He wrote, “As social equality spreads there are more and more people who, though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine their whole destiny is in their hands… Every man is forever thrown back on himself alone, and there is danger that he may be shut up in the solitude of his own heart.”

Tocqueville thought that this social isolation would lead to tyranny – but not the violent kind. He thought it would be “administrative despotism”. He says that this tyranny “…makes the exercise of free choice less useful and rarer, restricts the activity of free will within a narrow compass, and little by little robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties… It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform --- so that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd.”

These quotes come from a book called The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society, by Murray Jardine (ISBN:1587430703). In it he critiques the secular liberal agenda that he claims has been based on a distortion of a protestant work ethic and has resulted in a free market economy which has produced a consumerism of self expression. This self expression has become the dominant “ethic” in western society. But of course it is not an ethic that can sustain a society. It is an ethic for people who consider that each is free to do as he or she likes.

In its place he advocates a Christian ethic of unconditional love. Living for others as agents of the good God.

We have read the reports of a special sitting of the US Congress passing legislation to allow a women to continue to live on life support. It appears the debate was passionate, as is the controversy surrounding the woman’s immediate family and friends.

One newspaper headed its story “Right to Life”, borrowing a phrase from the debates at the other end of the life cycle. Leaving aside the particular issues in this case, the idea of a right to life is a little complex. Generally it means something like the right to continue one’s life without it being ended or harmed by others.

Within a closed human universe an idea like this may be self-evident, but in a Christian universe created and ruled by God, such ideas need serious qualification. Life is not a right which God’s creatures possess. It is a gift given by their Creator. It is also a protected gift. Protected by the clear warnings of the Creator against any who would take the life away from those to whom he has given it.

But it is a mortal life. A life with death at the end. It is God who gives, and God who takes away our life. As far as God is concerned there is no right to life. Certainly no right to live on forever. There was the possibility of a gift like that once, but it was lost by the rebellion of the humans in the garden.

Death is the harsh consequence of human rebellion, which seems to have destroyed the possibility of the fruit of the tree of life ever being tasted by humans.

Except that there was another human, a human who was God himself, who did not rebel, who did what God wanted. Who took humanity on himself and took it to the grave for all people, who was raised to life, never to die again. A human who could not be held by death because he was not under its power.

It was this human who has made it possible for the gift of immortal life which has been withheld from us, to be given to us as a new gift. The gift is made possible by the death of death. “By his death he has destroyed death and by his rising to life again he has brought us in to new and everlasting life.”

This is not an extension of life, it is not a kind of spiritual life support. It is a new life, in which the old life is ended, the person is changed, glorified, and allowed to eat of the tree of life which grows in the paradise of God. For those who will receive the gift.
Dale

In a world (a western world anyway) that is full of entertainment, relaxation techniques, infinite leisure possibilities, and an avowed commitment to peace and reconciliation (at least publicly), anger emerges as a surprising and common experience.

Part of this is due to the self-focussed culture which, for example, approves of looking for a marriage partner who can "meet all my needs" (hence the trend to delay marriage) rather than someone we are willing to love with all we have for the rest of our life. Anger often arises out of disappointed expectations within close relationships.

Some anger arises in company with an anti-institutional feeling. Not the protest culture of the 60's but the feeling powerless in the face of increased regulation and the spread of a global (shareholder) economy.

Anger, they say, has depression as its child. Especially anger that is not acknowledged and dealt with.

Christians get angry. Sometimes rightly so. (Anger is not wrong in itself. It depends whether it is righteous anger or not.) But sometimes not rightly so. Sometimes the good anger is allowed to fester and stay too long.

So is there a cure for anger? Changing our mind set to a godly Christ-focussed one might eliminate the "poor me" anger that arises because of faulty expectations.

Being truthful could be helpful. Especially in those relationships which breed anger. Confronting unhelpful behaviour, refusing to rescue a wife or husband, naming things for what they are instead of covering them over (especially with religious labels). All these could be a help. Sometimes we are angry with a person but the anger really arises from another event or relationship. It has been transferred on to a safer object. Honestly clarifying this will help.

Sometimes we need someone else to listen to us talk it out and then to pray for us. Often the anger is a sign of significant hurt which needs healing. This is a right anger responding to a wrong done to us. Healing the anger involves healing the wrong.

Healing is possible. Denial doesn't help.
Dale

Back to Top

Sometimes, when I set out to write the weekly reflection, I just look at the white screen for along time, and no words appear. Today I couldn’t decide whether to write about our Outreach ministries or the Bali bombs.

It is a difficult choice because both are part of our life in Indonesia. The bombs have affected some of us directly and others indirectly. They have turned the minds of some back to other dark days, and filled others with foreboding. Some are processing the personal impact of these explosions. For them our prayers are needed now.

We feel great sadness, not only for those who were injured, or who lost their lives, and their loved ones, but also for this country and its people. The injured, the grieving, the poor and dispossessed – we grieve for them all. And we know that there are many others who have suffered because of natural disasters, human cruelty, neglect or corruption.

I think Christians feel a deep compassion for those who suffer, because we have ourselves experienced the compassion of Christ in our own sufferings. We have heard about the suffering of Christ, and we share in those sufferings ourselves to some extent. That is one reason we seek to help those in need.

We want to bring the great message of repentance and forgiveness of sins to everyone, because we know that this brings liberty at the deepest level. And we also want to bring comfort and healing to the bodies and minds of those who suffer. We Christians have not abandoned the physical in favour of the spiritual. We believe God created the material world as well as the spiritual. He created humans as physical, material earth-bound creatures (at least for the time being), and he said what he had made was good.

That is why there are so many stories, all the way through the bible, about God and his servants healing people and looking after the needy. That is why Jesus did so much of it. He was not doing it to draw attention to himself (he tried to avoid the attention). He did it because he was compassionate.

And so do we. Whether it is folk who are affected by terror, or disaster, or people who are in some other kind of need, we Christians cannot help acting compassionately toward them. It is the Spirit of Christ in us. No wonder we have so many projects we want to contribute to.

In the last week there has been a flurry of stories about the closure of churches. Many of the stories are connected with events in Bandung. Others are closer to home.

The matter is complex of course. Some of the buildings where church meetings are alleged to have taken place apparently are not licensed as places of worship, even though the churches are registered. Town planning regulations in developed countries might also prevent such services taking place. But the news reports were not about local government officials doing their job. Many parties are involved in these disputes.

As in all situations of conflict there is the possibility of a movement towards a better solution, and there is the possibility that matters may deteriorate. So far, it seems, there has been face to face dialogue which must be worth something.

Those who read the papers will know that this problem is not new, and that it has many dimensions. One of the questions that can be asked is why there are so many church meetings in unlicensed premises. No doubt there is more than one answer to this question.

We foreigners who watch from the sidelines often don’t know much about the issues, and even if we do, we don’t always understand them very well. But we see brothers and sisters in difficult situations. And we see disagreements that affect the life of the nation. But we can understand that the issues are fairly complex, and that they have a history.

So we must pray. And we can ask our friends to pray. With the internet we can point overseas friends to news articles in the local press which probably never get reported in overseas media.

I suppose all of the Christian foreigners in Indonesia are here to make some contribution to this nation. We are not here just to exploit it or to make a lot of money for ourselves. We have friends here, and we want to pray for this wonderful country.

This is an interesting time to be in Indonesia. It is a time of change and growth. New ways of living are emerging, struggles are everywhere. I believe now is a time for us Christians to pray hard: for our brothers and sisters, for the people of this great nation, for its leaders.

Indonesia has been celebrating its 60^th birthday this week. Although is not Indonesia exactly but the Republic of Indonesia which looks back to August 17, 1945. The Japanese who had occupied the archipelago during the war had surrendered on August 15. There were no Allied troops in Indonesia and the Japanese were inclined to hand over Indonesia to an independent nationalist government. By August 17 Sukarno, Mohammad Hatta and other Indonesian leaders had decided to declare the country independent on their own initiative, apart from any promises of the Japanese and without waiting for the approval of the Allies.

On the morning of August 17, 1945 Sukarno read a simple declaration in front of his house in Jakarta, “We the people of Indonesia hereby declare the independence of Indonesia…”

But the Allies were preparing to take over from the Japanese and restore the colonial government of the Netherlands. The declaration of independence started a five year war of independence. Under US and Security Council pressure the Netherlands finally gave up its attempts to include Indonesia in its empire as a federal state. On August 15, 1950 a new constitution replaced the United States of Indonesia (the Dutch orchestrated Federal State) with a new unitary Republic of Indonesia.

This week the Dutch Foreign Minister was reported as saying that the Netherlands recognised the date of Indonesian Independence, ie 17 August 1945.

Being independent and free is not a simple affair. It depends what one wants to be free from and what one wants to be free to do. It also depends on whether one has the ability or strength to pursue those freedoms – and the will.

Sometimes the greatest restraints to freedom are within us. Christians know that, in their personal lives, and in the life of the church, the internal restraints can be very difficult. That is one reason we pray for God’s help.

We are also told to pray for our national leaders. Christians believe that government is a gift from God for nations so that we can lead peaceful lives. That is one reason why we regularly pray for the government of this and other countries in our public prayers.

60 years is not a long time for a new nation to develop. The process of becoming a prosperous united nation is still under way. We Christians can rejoice in answers to our prayers and take courage to continue to pray for the welfare of this great country.

Another bombing raises again some old feelings. Like the repetition of reports of evil, it amplifies the effect of previous experiences we have had, brings them back to the surface. For some of us that is another experience of pain. For others it is an opportunity to realise how much healing has taken place.

Some of us are from London or know London. We have friends there, we have travelled on those trains and buses and we sympathise with the folk who are suffering.

For all of us death stares us in the face again: the death of relatives or friends who might have died, or who did die, in these blasts; our own death as well. Once again we see that death can come unexpectedly and without warning.

With so many reminders we have plenty of incentives to prepare for our own death and the death of our relatives and friends. Christians say this preparation is primarily related to God. Are we at peace with God, do we know his forgiveness, do we trust Jesus’ death to cover our sins, are we looking forward to being with him? But equally Christians want to be at peace with their friends and family. That is one reason we share the peace in church – so that we can be at peace with each other. Being in a good relationship with our parents and children and friends is part of the Christian’s preparation for death.

But death is not the only thing that disturbs us about these bombings. It is evil: evil that occurs in the heart of people, of all kinds of people from all nations and tribes and cultures.

Christians sing psalms when they are in trouble. They call out to God. Because God is the only one who can deliver us from evil. But Christians also know that in this world God continues to act through ordinary people. People who do what is right and good, and who stand against evil, and corruption and dishonesty.

As we sympathise with our friends in London, we pray for those who have been traumatised and injured, for those who have lost friends and relatives, we pray also for those involved in the difficult task of rescue, counselling and healing.

“Do not go out into the field, or walk on the road; for the enemy has a sword, terror is on every side." (Jer 6.25NRSV).

my heart shall not fear; though war rise up against me, yet I will be confident. (Ps 27:1-3NRSV)

Discussions still continue about the tsunami. One of my bank tellers asked me about it today. Everyone has an angle on it – not surprisingly since it has made an impact on so many aspects of life. For north Sumatera and Aceh so many public servants – teachers, medical staff, and police have been killed. Replacing so many vital workers will be a major task, and will also have the potential to bring about unexpected change.

The anxiety about large numbers of foreigners in Aceh is understandable. It is like a huge cultural and economic invasion. Not only foreigners of course. Large numbers from other parts of Indonesia have apparently come to Aceh to offer humanitarian help.

It is wonderful to see so much goodwill and compassion being stirred. And it has been sustained for a relatively long time. But debates about its meaning also continue. Contrary to my expectations some sections of the western press have carried on a philosophical and theological debate about it. Although to be fair to the journalists most of the debate has been carried by professional (mostly humanist) philosophers who have used the occasion to push their agnostic or atheistic views.

Today someone forwarded an email from a Christian minister outlining one possible Christian view of the tsunami. This theological debate has brought to the surface a problem of world views. The problem concerns God’s relations with nature. Some speak about nature as though it was a self existent reality - almost another divine being. This personification of nature may be based on an idea that God and nature are quite separate. A kind of naturalism or deism that may see God as the originator of nature but does not see him having anything to do with its ongoing activity.

The Bible becomes a difficult book to deal with from that point of view. Not only do we read that Jesus is the one who upholds everything by his powerful word, or that all things hold together in him, but we also see all the way through the bible, especially at the big events, that God claims to be using the creation as part of what he is doing. Sometimes creation is like a big signboard, some times like loud speaker. Sometimes it is vitally involved in what God is doing.

The difficulty we have is that usually in the Bible we have an explanation or interpretation of what God is doing (eg at the flood). Nowadays we do not have the same kind of certainty about the explanation. There are a number of possible explanations for earthquakes and other disasters. But one of the explanations will not do: that is that God is not involved with his creation. The question we have to answer is how and why.
Dale

The Indonesian Ambassador to Australia was reported as saying that he hoped Australia might supply psychologists to help with the healing of survivors of the tragedy in Sumatra. The President was also reported as saying that the second stage of the relief effort was to mentally rehabilitate the survivors.

This is a very important – and difficult - task. It is well known that major traumas can have long term effects in the lives of those who suffered them or witnessed them. It is just 30 years since cyclone Tracy demolished Darwin. It is nearly six years since the terrible riots in Jakarta. Some of us have been witnesses to or survivors of other traumatic events, and many of us know people who have been through them.

The symptoms of the stress that follows major traumas can be reduced by appropriate counselling. Depending on the level of stress this may include the opportunity to talk about the events, to gain some meaning or understanding about them, and to work out ways to change unhelpful thought and behaviour patterns. People who notice that they are behaving differently, for example reliving the event, having nightmares, trouble sleeping, becoming emotionally numb, avoiding things that remind them of the trauma etc, should consider seeking help. For some people there are persistent feelings of hopelessness, guilt, depression or pessimism.

Not everyone develops serious symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and most who do find that healing is possible.

In the longer term, some people develop habits of thinking or acting which began as coping mechanisms, but which are quite unhelpful in their ongoing life. This is true also for many people who have had to learn how to cope with difficult circumstances which they would not regard as serious trauma.

For some people the shock of a traumatic event not only unsettles their view of the safe world they thought they lived in, it can also disturb their belief system. Sometimes that is good since it allows them to develop a set of beliefs which is more in line with the truth.

In all of this Christians suffer as much as anyone else. Unfortunately sometimes Christians think that their symptoms somehow call in question the strength of their faith and so they move into denial. But Christians can have their minds and hearts injured just as badly as their bodies. One advantage Christians have is that, as well as the normal help, they have the healing presence of the Spirit of God in their life. Sometimes God’s healing has to be ministered through others, but it is certainly powerful – especially for injuries to the heart and mind.
Dale

“It was like a scene from the apocalypse” said one survivor. A headline in an overseas paper said, “Postcards from the Apocalypse”. The Portal in the Koran Tempo had, “Gifts and Disasters are His will”.

It is unlikely that the western press will involve God too much in this catastrophe.

But these cries of astonishment at the enormous havoc created by the earthquake do draw our attention to the possibility that God is involved. Or at least they entice us to make a choice about it. Perhaps God was not involved at all. Perhaps he was implicated because the earth’s crust is not closed and smooth. Why did he leave a creation that is still not perfect? Perhaps, as the Portal suggested, he is behind and involved in everything that happens. Nothing can escape his will. What he has decided, will happen no matter what anyone does.

Perhaps he is involved in this in other ways. Maybe he wants us to ask questions not about him but about us. Were the people who were swept away worse people than us? They were probably the same as us. But what if it was me who was swept away? Am I ready to die? And what about after that? Am I ready to face up to God? Are there things happening in my life that ought to be changed, repented of? And my friends? Are they ready to meet God?

This kind of disaster is more difficult to understand because none of it can be blamed on people. It was two plates of the earth’s crust scraping together that caused the tidal wave. We can understand it in purely secular terms as a problem of geology. But if we think there is a God who is involved with his world and the people he has made then we have questions to ask about God.

And God has some answers for us – not all of which we may be willing to hear. These are the kinds of things that will happen before the end, before the great day of God’s judgment. They are a warning. The papers tell us about all the earthquakes in the past – and how big they were. The Bible tells us what is coming after the earthquakes. They are signs of the groaning of the creation itself. They tell us that the creation is waiting to be set free from futility and enter into the glorious freedom of the children of God. The scraping of the tectonic plates tells us of a day when there will be a new creation – without pain or tears or death ever again.
Dale

Back to Top