Daniel Andrews’ plebiscite letter to Malcolm Turnbull

I’m beginning to suspect that our Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, needs a new media advisor, someone who can help him tone down the rhetoric he is continually spraying at millions of fellow Australians.

In an open letter address to Malcolm Turnbull, Mr Andrews has called for Government to drop the plebiscite on marriage, and instead present a bi-partisan Bill to Parliament within the next 100 days.

AndrewsDaniel58250

In the letter, he writes,

“It will legitimise a hateful debate which will subject LGBTI Australians to publicly-funded slurs and denigration.”

“In Victoria equality is not negotiable. On behalf of my state, I urge you to accept there is no need for a costly and divisive plebiscite and agree to produce a bipartisan Bill to amend the Marriage Act within the next 100 days.”

And apparently members of Parliament who don’t share Mr Andrews’ views, “do not represent a fair and modern country.”

Clearly, the Victorian Premier doesn’t trust the Australian people to conduct a civilised discussion on marriage, and he is also fearful of the possibility that Australians will not support change to the Marriage Act.

I believe there are arguments for and against this plebiscite, and it is undoubtedly an unusual course of action, but it is a valid democratic pathway, and one that was determined months ago.

Given this fact, would it not be wise for our political leaders to encourage Australians to discuss this issue with grace and respect, rather than the unhelpful name-calling Mr Andrews’ seems unable to avoid? This letter is certainly not as offensive as many of his comments which usually include the words, bigot and homophobe, but it still derogatory.  

Let us not pretend otherwise, changing the definition of marriage is no small thing. Australians are not choosing whether to adopt a new tax or funding more schools or creating the NBN, as important as such things may be; we are deciding how Australia will view what is the most essential and basic unit of every society on earth, marriage. Does not the significance of this issue deserve the voice of the Australian people?

As someone who has a voice in the community, albeit a small one, I will gladly stand alongside Mr Andrews’ and affirm that hateful speech and actions against LGBTI people is unacceptable. A marriage plebiscite does not justify spite or slander toward those who wish to change the Marriage Act, nor toward those who believe the Act should remain unaltered.

As important as this plebiscite is, there is something of greater consequence, and that is the good of others. I have no desire to sacrifice people for the sake of a vote. I do not wish harm on any homosexual and lesbian Aussies. But please do not erroneously fuse disagreement with hate as though there is an inextricable link between the two, for this is not the case. To disagree civilly is not to hate, and by thinking as such Mr Andrews’ risks undermining the foundation of democracy.

It is possible, indeed desirable, to show kindness in disagreement. I realise that kindness like marriage is a disappearing norm in Australia today, but showing gentleness and respect toward those with whom there is a different view ought to be basic to our humanity. Is this not one of the reasons why Donald Trump leaves us shuddering?

Mr Andrews’, I appreciate your concerns about the plebiscite, but rather than demeaning those Australians who have a different opinion, will you stand with us in modelling and encouraging a constructive conversation about marriage?

Is this Melbourne’s best Milkshake?

For this rainy Sunday afternoon I have a very different post. Two Saturdays ago the family visited Neil Perry’s new Melbourne food venture, the ‘Burger Project‘.

IMG_9138

The burgers and chips were enjoyable; not spectacular but not too shabby either.

The milkshake, on the other hand, is worthy of many repeat visits.

The shakes are unlike those idiotic viral drinks which require a straw as thick as a toilet roll, so stuffed with marshmallows, sprinkles and other diabetic inducing treats. These were simple, delicate, and exactly how a real milkshake should taste.

Between our family of 5 we shared both strawberry and chocolate milkshakes. The strawberry was fresh and yum, but the chocolate was perry delicious.

Valrhona is Perry’s chocolate of choice, one of the world’s most luxurious cacao extracts. It is smooth, deep and rich, and with just the right portions of milk and ice cream, this chocolate milkshake is worth all $7.50.

I give 5 milkshake glasses out of 5!

 

Looking to the Russian Winter

News of the Russian Olympic drug scandal has reached the ears of the media and is being rightly exposed, but flying under the radar is another Russian story, one of tragic Dostoevskian proportions.

Two weeks ago President Vladimir Putin signed into law measures outlawing evangelistic activities of religious groups in Russia. Under the guise of ‘anti-terrorism’, the Russian Government has banned churches from communicating their beliefs outside of sites officially designated by the state.

Charges can now be made against individuals for inviting people to church, for distributing literature in the community, and for presenting in peaceful ways, a persuasive case for one’s religious convictions.

Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Thomas J. Reese, has said,

“These deeply flawed anti-terrorism measures will buttress the Russian government’s war against human rights and religious freedom…They will make it easier for Russian authorities to repress religious communities, stifle peaceful dissent, and detain and imprison people. Neither these measures nor the currently existing anti-extremism law meet international human rights and religious freedom standards.”

Thousands of Churches across Russia are holding prayer vigils, but with little hope of seeing the Government return to any sense of reasonableness.

IMG_8049

Most Australians will recognise these measures as alarming, draconian, and unbefitting of any nation claiming to be a pluralist society and a liberal democracy. Whether Russia would consider itself to be these things is disputable, but surely we would never witness such restrictions here in Australia?

Before we ask Dale to tell the world of the hole we haven’t dug, we must recognise that Putin-like voices can also be found in Australia, on both poles of politics. The ideology is different, but the desire to control and limit religion is similar.  In the media, politics, and education there is a growing murmuring, arguing that religion is tolerable in private, but has no place in public discourse, and certainly not in politics and in our schools. For example, both the Greens and the Sex Party are famed for policies that will reduce religious freedoms, and the current Victorian Government has done more to legislate against Christian freedoms than any other Australian Government in living memory.

Then there is the now infamous example of Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, and how it was used to attack the Catholic Archbishop, Julian Porteous. What was so intolerable that the weight of law was required to come down on him? Well, Porteous published a pamphlet for Catholics, explaining a view of marriage that is congruent not only with Catholic beliefs, but which also reflects the legal definition of marriage in Australia.

It is possible to prohibit religious speech through law, and it possible to achieve the same goal by bullying and slandering those who hold religious convictions. In the lead up to the Federal election there were notable voices telling the Australian people that public dialogue about the Marriage Act was impossible. Ironically, the very same people proved their point as they employed insults and derogatory words against those who dared suggest a plebiscite might be a good idea.

Secularists wants us to believe that the public space is a purist place free from ideologue, which of course they define as atheistic humanism.This could not be further from the truth, for there is no public vacuum free from assumptions and beliefs informed by world views.  The Australian public space is pluralist, and invites people to contribute, not by leaving their convictions and consciences at home, but by bringing them to the conversation. The epistemic and moral superiority of secular humanism is as mythical as the pokemon, and yet we are chasing after it.

There is a distinction established in Australia’s Constitution between the secular state and religious institutions, but it does not denude the role of religion in public, but simply protects the State from either being controlled by or instituting any single Christian denomination.

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.” (Ch5. Section 116)

This Australian dichotomy between government and religion is easily sustained for Christians, given that the distinction exists because of the Christian world view. For the Christian, Jesus is Lord over all of life but the church is not the state and the state is not the church. There is an entity called the  ‘Church of England’, which is the unfortunate outcome of various historical quirks, rather than theological necessity, but it is not the situation we have here in Australia. To what extent other religions can manage this distinction, is a topic worth exploring.

During the recent Symposium on ‘Freedom of Speech’, hosted by Mentone Baptist Church, the new member of Goldstein, Tim Wilson, remarked,

“we need a lived culture of open discussion”.

It was as though someone had finally solved the congestion issues on Melbourne’s roads, such was the freshness.  Mr Wilson gave example to this value by addressing the marriage debate, saying, “I don’t think we can have a constructive conversation around the marriage of same-sex couples until both sides can say what they truly think.”

I couldn’t agree with him more.

A darkness is descending on Russia. For so much of her history the Russian people have been oppressed by one totalitarian rule or another. The light of democracy that dawned late last century is now disappearing over this vast steppe. Australians can assume the naive posture of ‘never us’, but the seeds of religious intolerance are already planted, and without due care it will grow and choke free speech. 

Not imposition but persuasion; that is the mark of a true liberal democracy. Progress cannot be achieved when the State bullies its own citizens and stifles disagreement; it only further polarises people. We would do well to heed Tim Wilson’s exhortation. More than that, perhaps we should return to the words of the Christian Scriptures’ that many Australians now deem as irrelevant, ‘speak truth in love’. Imagine, grounding a society upon that ethic?

‘Vive La Australia’: Freedom of Speech in Australia

Last night while Melbourne suffered through the Great Snowstorm of 2016 and the rest of the world chased Pokemons, Mentone gathered for quite an extraordinary evening.

FreedomofSpeech

The topic of conversation was ‘Freedom of Speech in Australia’, and we were privileged to have speaking, Mr Tim Wilson MHR, and Rev Dr Michael Bird. Present in the audience were members of various political parties (and of none), and people reflecting a variety of religious and non-religious world views, including of course members from Mentone Baptist Church.

The first thing I learnt last night is that the Federal seat of Goldstein, whom Tim Wilson now represents, is not pronounced Goldstein but rather, Goldstein! In other words, the ein is pronounced as mine, not bean. Apologies to everyone living in Beaumaris, Hampton, Brighton, and so on!

Electoral names aside, both Wilson and Bird presented a case for free speech in Australia that was erudite, thoughtful, and engaging. And this was followed by a time of QandA with the audience.

Tim Wilson spoke first. He offered an historical overview of Australia’s anti-discrimination laws, and articulated how ‘good law’, that which related to work place harassment, has been abused by being applied universally to public speech. A case in point is the now infamous and inexplicable Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act.

In a defence of free speech, Wilson asked, “is it really right, just, that to exercise our most basic right we have to question whether we are going to be held in contempt of the law and then going have to pay significant legal bills to defend ourselves”

While not the topic at hand, it is difficult to speak on Freedom of Speech in 2016 without commenting on the current marriage debate. Wilson shared some of his own experiences growing up as a homosexual and of him favouring changes to the Marriage Act. Most importantly, in light of his views on marriage, Wilson said,

“I don’t think we can have a constructive conversation around the marriage of same-sex couples until both sides can say what they truly think.”

He then pushed further, pointing out, “the hypocritical nature of so many people today, when they don’t want to hear a particular argument, they declare it to be bigoted or hate speech.” Wilson then referred to Bill Shorten and Penny Wong, noting that only a few short years ago they spoke against changes to the Marriage Act, but now they can’t desist from calling opponents of same-sex marriage, bigots and hate filled.

At the other end of the spectrum, Tim Wilson offered a timely admonition to religious organisations, who though themselves call for a higher standard of morality, they have been exposed, especially in the area of sexual abuse.

As a Christian leader I affirm his rebuke, and would add that men (or women) who commit abhorrent acts on children behind clerical vestments and institutions are not representative of the Christ whom they claim to worship, but are the very manifestation of anti-Christ, for the deny him by their deeds. And yet, we need to understand that the public do not also differentiate between authentic Christians and dress-up Christians. Tim Wilson was spot on to call out Christian leaders to work harder on this.

Mike Bird employed his familiar array of jocose analogies and allusions, while driving home some pertinent truths for Australian society, as well as for Churches.

‘The future is French’, Mike asserted, in relation to where Australian religion and politics is heading. Either we will take the path of Vive la différence or that of the less desirable, Laïcité.

“I like to think our Constitution is robust enough to protect basic freedoms, and our political parties will seek to do right by all. However, people of faith can expect to receive a hard time from progressive activists and parties in the forseeable future. Religion may be sanitised from the public square.”

How should Churches respond to this paradigm cultural and political shift? Bird proposed that the future will either be Swedish or Chinese!

The reproach was overlooked by many last night, but Bird was calling out ‘liberal’ churches, suggesting they suffered from Stockholm syndrome. That is, they have lost their identity by tinkering with the tenets of the Christian faith in order to ensure religion is palatable to the powers that be.

Instead, Bird exhorted Christians to learn from Christianity in China, where it exists on the margins of society. Yet despite the oppression of Christians in China for many decades,  it has witnessed exponential growth, and all without the privileges of political and public freedoms, which we currently enjoy in this country.

Michael Bird also lauded Tim Wilson’s work last year in organising the Religious Freedom Roundtable, and he suggested that we need more forums such like that.

If I were to offer any criticisms, they would be minor:

At one point Tim spoke of certain religious groups who have tried to impose their morality onto other minorities. I do not disagree that historically there have been religious groups who’ve behaved as such, but the key word here is ‘impose’. There is an essential difference between imposition and influence, or pressure and persuasion. Mike said it well, when he exhorted Christians to “persuasive and compassionate discourse.”

In a crescendo of rhetoric Mike declared that, ’Christendom is over’. I would push back on this point and argue that Christendom in Australia never was. There is no doubt that Christianity has significantly influenced Australian culture and life, but it has been tolerated rather than happily embraced, sitting there in a position of begrudged prominence.

13682448_10154314182706499_523605627_o

The content of each presentation was winsome and helpful, but for me the highlight of the evening was the manner in which the conversation was conducted, including  participation from the audience. The tone was respectful but not innocuous; certain hypocrisies were called out, and serious challenges were proposed, but all without the immature name-calling and shout downs that are becoming all to common in the public square.

Last night demythologised the rhetoric of some social progressives, that civil dialogue can’t be had on issues relating to sexuality and marriage. Can an heterosexual Evangelical Anglican clergyman discuss issues of national importance with an agnostic gay politician? The answer is, yes. Indeed, despite obvious differences, they shared much in common. And can a room full of people, representing a spectrum of political and religious ideologies, enjoy a robust night of conversation? Yes, and in fact, people stayed and talked so late into the evening I was tempted to begin turning off the lights.

Finally, as a poignant way to close the evening, while answering a question on how to raise children to preserve and properly practice free speech, Mike Bird responded, ‘Love God, love your neighbour.’

Of course, these words comes from the lips of Jesus, who in turn was affirming the Old Testament Scriptures, and they remain the model for how Christians relate to others in society. I cannot speak for those of other world views, but this is how Christians must participate in both public and private. This Golden Rule does not build a staircase to Heaven as is sometimes believed, but rather, it is the life response of a person who has been captivated by the grace and mercy of God in Christ Jesus. It was fitting way to end such a rewarding night, “Love your neighbour as yourself”.

The talks an be downloaded here and the QandA here

SBS Revision: 1 step forward

They said the Titanic couldn’t be raised; it appears as though the same is true of SBS’s attacks on a group of Churches.

IMG_6046

Looking toward the Central Coast from Melbourne!

This afternoon (July 6) SBS published a revised article by Robert Burton-Bradley, concerning alleged “homophobic” Churches in the Central Coast of NSW.  The original article was removed from the SBS website. Two newspapers used the story to write their own pieces, one whom later apologised to FIEC.

One needs to acknowledge that the new version of the article is an improvement on the original, however there remain enormous problems.

First, there remains the issue of selective quotations. Half a story is not a full story; it is a false story.  Why hasn’t Burton-Bradley included in his article all the bits in these sermons that speak of love and grace? Why has he neglected the trajectory of these sermons which point to good news of Jesus Christ?

Second, contrary to implications in the article, these Churches are not teaching the death penalty for gays and lesbians. That the Bible speaks of the death penalty is a literary fact, and it would be quite strange for anyone to suggest otherwise. But were these preachers arguing for reinstating the death penalty upon homosexuals? The answer is no. In fact, are they not following the direction determined by the Scriptures, whereby the Old Testament finds its fulfilment in the person and work of Jesus Christ?

If the churches were preaching hate then we would all have reason to be concerned, but this is simply untrue.

Third, according to the article, both the NSW Department of Education and the Schools have explored the complaint made by Darrin Morgan, and the outcome is that the churches were given a green light to continue renting their facilities on weekends.

Given this is the case, readers are still left wondering, where is the story here?

I don’t know what relationship Darrin Morgan has with the schools, if any at all. The story is sounding increasingly like a local atheist has an axe to grind with Churches, and he’s gone fishing and enticed a journalist to join him, and they’ve come back claiming to have caught a snapper…except there ain’t no snapper to be found.

Finally, who is the Human Rights Advocacy Australia (the organisation quoted repeatedly by  Burton-Bradley)? The name sounds impressive, but I can’t find a website for them, only a small Facebook group and a couple of comments from ‘spokesman’, Darrin Morgan. If anyone can point me to some helpful information, thanks.

My  response to the original SBS story can be read here

 

Walk a Different Path to One Nation

In the wash out from Saturday’s election I found this gem from a Facebook friend:

“It’s time for Christians to show some empathy for our Muslim neighbours. Christians cry “persecution” at the drop of a hat, but can we even imagine how Muslims must feel knowing there’s a whole party dedicated entirely to attacking them in the senate?!”

390371-pauline-hanson

news.com.au

In the midst of growing suspense as to who will Govern Australia for the next three years, emerging out of the smoke is Pauline Hanson. Hanson and her One Nation party are set to claim between 2 and 4 seats in the Senate (thanks a lot Queensland!). A centre piece of their campaign strategy are  policies relating to Muslims, including prohibiting further Muslim migrants and banning the building of Mosques.

The reality of fear mongering is that there is almost always a speck of truth to be found, but it is swamped by swathes of hyperbole, caricature, and untruths. Yes, there is a problem within Islam, as we have seen again in Baghdad, Dhaka, and Istanbul. As a Christian, I disagree with the Islamic view of God and of the world. But do we not realise that fear and hate breed only more fear and hate? Are we benign to the fact that our words are rarely hypothetical, but relate to real human beings? We can assume many Australian Muslims are today feeling apprehensive at the prospect of having in Parliament a block of Senators whose agenda targets them.

It is important to realise that fear tactics are not owned exclusively by Pauline Hanson; we have seen them employed by many and on issues ranging from asylum seekers to marriage, and dare I suggest, Medicare?  There is however, something particularly ugly about One Nation’s platform.

If One Nation’s aim was to win votes, the strategy has clearly worked. If however, their design is to create a better nation, their failure is inevitable because their ideology is premised on hate. This is a growing concern across the political spectrum as people refuse difference of opinion.  A democracy without dissent has lost its soul. Other groups can speak for themselves, but it is all very well for Christians to speak about preserving freedom of religion for ourselves, and yet in denying it for others, are we not in danger of falling into hypocrisy?

Christians must not only resist One Nation’s Muslim policies, but we must counter them by walking a different path.

One day Jesus was questioned by the legal and social commentators of his day, and he responded to their scrutiny by saying, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”

The pundits agreed, that is, until Jesus gave expression to this principle,

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

This is how Christians ought to relate to our Muslim neighbours.

Freedom of Speech

The topic of ‘Freedom of Speech’ grabbed national attention in last week’s Federal election.

Newly elected member of Goldstein, Tim Wilson, and Dr Michael Bird (of Ridley College) will be speaking at the public event.

Just one week to go.  Reserve you tickets here

freedom of speech

The grass is not always greener on the other side

“Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”

    For it is not wise to ask such questions.” (Ecclesiastes 7:10)

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

In my view, Christians should not be so entrenched in a political ideology that they cannot in principle move to another party and viewpoint;  after all, Gospel values can not be boxed into particular  political ideologies, and the current political landscape in Australia is an example of this. Many Christians are rightly dismayed by the Coalition’s policies on asylum seekers and cuts to foreign aid. Similarly, there is significant concern with Labor’s position on asylum seekers, as well as positions on marriage, sexuality, and freedom of religion that is being platformed by both Labor and the Greens.

Of course, there are a thousand economic issues which should not neglected either, for economics contribute impacts societal good and order, and vice versa.

It feels as though our politicians are digging tunnels in the mud, in a race to the bottom of the quagmire.

I don’t disdain politics, nor those who are prepared to serve the public in what is often a much maligned profession. As Christians, we believe we should honour those in authority and to pray for them. This we do, and without denuding these things, in our democratic society we also have opportunity and responsibility to articulate our concerns.

As a Pastor, I have never suggested to others how they should vote, nor do I disclose my own vote. I do however believe it is important for voters to be aware of  agendas their vote will be supporting.

In any Government there is the good and bad, but the bad in our political parties right now is so appalling, it is leaving many voters (not only Christians) despondent and with little enthusiasm for tomorrow. Not only so, the gravity of the issues at stake have provoked more Christian commentary than I have seen in any previous election.

Chief among the issues is religious freedom, which most popularly framed in terms of the debate on marriage, however there are other related issues. For example,

Earlier in the election campaign, opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus referenced one of his own party’s policies, saying, “Labor believes that no faith, no religion, no set of beliefs should ever be used as an instrument of division or exclusion… Condemning anyone, discriminating against anyone, vilifying anyone is a violation of the values we all share, a violation which can never be justified by anyone’s faith or belief.”

Thankfully, Bill Shorten backed away from these comments, albeit in a somewhat imprecise and noncommittal manner.

One of the more bizarre moves I have seen is of some Christians giving weight to the Greens Party whose platform includes taking freedoms from Christians.

On this, I have gently chuckled at the irony of some of my Baptist colleagues, who on the one hand are the most ferocious defenders of church and state separation, are sometimes the most keen to talk politics and in a few instances, happen to be vocal supporters of the Greens.

Perhaps if the Greens stuck to policies on asylum seekers and the environment there may be good reason to offer support. These are issues of grave significance. However, it would be simply naive to vote for these policies without considering the fact that a vote for the Greens is a vote against religious liberty.

Firstly, the Greens’ intention is to limit religious freedoms in Australia; that is without dispute. They themselves have said so:

“Our anti-discrimination laws offer good protections to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities, but they come with a gigantic exemption for religious organisations. Successive Labor and Coalition governments have maintained these exemptions, which mean that a religious hospital can refuse to employ a gay doctor, and a faith-based homelessness shelter can refuse to accept a transgender resident.

The Greens have fought against these exemptions at every opportunity, and we believe they should be eliminated. Anti discrimination laws should apply to everyone”

Nick McKim, Greens Senator, has said “The fundamental principle here is that Australians should be treated the same, whether or not they’re of one particular religion or another or whether in fact they’re not religious at all’.

I don’t disagree with the words as such, but the question is, what meaning and agenda is imported into these words? Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric, this is not about treating all Australians the same, this is about forcing a narrow secular humanity worldview onto all Australians. The existing exemptions are not designed to give special privileges to certain groups, but to protect freedom of conscience.  In that light, this issue concerns not only Christians, but any Australian who believes in freedom of conscience.

Second, the Greens have not (to my knowledge) defined the extent to which they will remove religious exemptions from the anti-discrimination laws; this is most concerning. Their platform doesn’t site any exemptions, although the examples provided refer to religious based hospitals and schools, and not churches. I suspect though, these examples are carefully chosen, ones that very few people would take issue with. But that’s all they are, examples. They do not stipulate with any precision how far they intend to take these redactions.

Even if they promise not to intrude on Churches and para-church organisations, there remain serious questions relating to religious based hospitals and schools, including:

Will religious based schools be forced to employ persons who do not affirm the values of their schools?

Will religious affiliated hospitals be coerced into providing procedures, such as abortions, against good conscience?

As Andrew Katay has rightly pointed out,

“a basic principle of political theology is the commitment to a pluralist state, where conscience is not coerced.”  The Greens platform betrays this essential democratic ideal, trouncing conscience and forcing people to betray the deepest convictions, and with that bringing “the punitive power of the state to bear against those who seek to follow their conscience.”

Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are not the only serious issues deserving our consideration tomorrow, but we are blindsiding society’s health and freedom should we ignore these matters

While I am grateful for the privilege of casting a vote at the ballot, tomorrow’s task will have little joy in it. Like so many people my heart and mind is scrambling together a retrieval ethic in order to find the least objectionable of choices. And yet even this moral dilemma, we should give thanks that we still have such freedom to choose.

Whatever the outcome, the reality that does gives Christians great joy is that our faith and hope does not lie in the electoral process nor its outcome, but in the Lord of life.  The Australian landscape may well be changing;  the Greens, and any party for that matter, can do their damned best to subvert and silence the Christian hope, but history’s story cannot escape God and the power of his amazing Gospel.