Jesus original intention for his followers.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "Upon this rock I will build my Ekklesia?" This came up in Matthew 16 verse 18 when Jesus was speaking to Peter, after Peter is the first of the disciples to openly declare Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Do we automatically know what Jesus meant, or is it worth revisiting this again? The first mistake would be to simply assume we know what he meant based upon modern translations of the Bible. Modern translations all seem to translate the work Ekklesia as Church. Older translations into English such as Tyndale and others of the 16th century did not do so.

But what does the word Ekklesia actually mean? When Jesus uttered the word in this context it was radical. In fact, so many of the things that Jesus said were completely radical the first time he said them. That is why he had so many enemies and was crucified. Remember, he completely upset the religious sensibilities of established institutional Judaism.

Here are a few places that I have looked at to seek a definition:

1) A straight definition of the Greek word the way it had been used up until Jesus' time can be found in Wikipedia. Ecclesia (from ancient Athens).
In Ancient Athens, the Ekklesia was a political assembly in any one city that made decisions for that particular city. All citizens were welcome to be a part of the Ekklesia. When Jesus uttered the word Ekklesia, this is the definition that his disciples would have heard. Another definition did not exist at the time.
Could Jesus have had a political definition in mind when he uttered this word? Well good exegesis demands we consider Jesus' views on politics from elsewhere in the gospels. Jesus says in John 18:36 that "His kingdom is not of this world" and that his followers would fight to defend it, if it were. Pilate rightly goes on to say "so you are a king then?" to which Jesus agrees.
I would argue that Jesus did have a political definition in mind when he said the word Ekklesia. The distinction that needs to be made though is that he was not saying his Kingdom was of this world, so neither should his Ekklesia be.

How could the word Ekklesia be translated as it had been understood by Greeks and Romans before the first century AD? If it is to have some political meaning, then this needs to be considered. It carries the idea of a council, a body of representatives, a legislature, a parliament, senate or congress. This "council" is to be the representative of God's Kingdom here in this earth. This does not mean making earthly political decisions as such. It does mean however, making decisions to transform this world through acts of love into God's Kingdom.

Consider the place that early believers had in the Roman Empire. They were expected to worship the Emperor as all people were. The Emperor set himself up as a god and demanded worship. Early Christian believers refused to worship the Emperor, and said "we have a different King". What is more they also had a different Ekklesia, the assembly of believers that endeavoured to see Jesus' Kingdom established on earth. It is no wonder that Rome was threatened by this concept and executed early Christians. I count myself among these believers. I know that in today's world if the Ekklesia of Jesus was truly impacting society in a big way, that it would be a threat to the established political system of the day, a threat that would undoubtedly result in persecution and execution of Christians once again.

In my mind, this is something of what Jesus meant when he said would establish his Council Assembly, starting with his first follower Peter.

2) It is worth taking a look directly at the Greek scriptures. This is not hard to do these days. The NET bible on Bible.org makes the Greek text available.  (A note here for dissenters- the Greek text has been deduced from the over 25,000 original manuscripts available. The fact that there is some variation in these texts is not alarming, as a process of Triangulation can be used to come up with the original words.)
Read the Greek text. To actually read the Greek you will have to click on the Grk/Heb tab at the top of the right hand column. You can click on the word ἐκκλησίαν and come up with a definition.
The definition speaks of "a gathering of citizens" or "an assembly of people gathered". The definition then goes on to speak of what the word means "in a Christian sense". That is, the word Ekklesia did add meaning from it's original Athenian political sense. But this is added meaning that came over the next couple of centuries.

So, I will readily admit that Ekklesia also means "a gathering or assembly of Christians".  But that is the definition of the word as it appears in Acts or in Paul's letters, but not as it appears when Jesus first says it in Matthew 16:18.

3)  A well researched article entitled "The translation of the Greek word 'Ekklesia' as 'church' in the English Bible and its ramifications", further discusses the definition of the word.
The article makes the point that there is no sense in scripture of a universal hierarchical church. Indeed the word Ekklesia is always used in a local context. Even in Revelation, Jesus addresses seven separate Ekklesia groups, but not one mass Ekklesia. This article argues that it is a mistake to translate the word Ekklesia as church, and that assembly or congregation are better suited.

Conclusion: Jesus was interested in establishing his Kingdom on earth, a new order. To do this he wanted to see Local Council Assemblies of believers be his representatives through out the earth. He always intended to remain the King in charge of all of these assemblies, never to have an intermediate person in charge. These Local Assemblies are of course places of worship, but if they never consider how to transform the world around them, then they are not fulfilling their purpose. Therefore the Council part of the definition needs to be worked out in practical Christian love.

I have argued strongly against the word church before. Again, I am not even suggesting a replacement. It is equally possible for us to behave as the representatives of King Jesus in local gatherings without having to put a label on anything. Often when we start to use labels, we begin to shape them into our own human religion and depart from Jesus' original intention. Let's be about doing Jesus' Kingdom.

Part 2: Nations in the Bible

This idea that "the nations" are important to God is not some fleeting idea in the Bible. It laces every story, every context, and is intertwined throughout the entire epic. It is simply because as westerners we are individualistic that we miss this emphasis. We make the perilous mistake of thinking that God's story is only about salvation, and then we reduce that to individual salvation.
One of my favourite verses in the Bible, I think sums up very well the purposes that are in the heart of God. Habakkuk is complaining to God about the violence and injustice surrounding Israel. The Lord responds that he can use any nation for his glory, even the Babylonians.
The Lord goes on to explain to Habakkuk that in a future time all will be clear:

This vision is for a future time, 
it describes the end and it will be fulfilled, 
if it seems slow in coming, wait patiently, for it will surely take place. 
It will not be delayed. 
What sorrow awaits you who build cities with money gained through murder and corruption! 
Has not the LORD of Heaven's armies promised that the wealth of nations will turn to ashes? 
They work so hard but all in vain! 
For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
(Habakkuk 2)


God is very interested in the behaviour of nations. The Lord wants to see his world transformed in every way to bring glory to him. He desires people every where to worship him and to display their love for God and for people through righteous and just living. It is glorifying to God when the nations live in the way that he desires.

It is not enough for individuals to simply live righteously. People exist in families, clans, tribes, communities and nations. These social structures must be transformed by the gospel. It is when this happens that God is glorified.

God's heart for nations is the very reason that God decided to use a nation as part of his plan. He spoke to Abraham and told him that he would be come a great nation that would bless all nations. Sadly, this plan is not fully revealed in the old testament. We see a hint of this during the time of Solomon. During Solomon's reign, his wisdom and fame spread to other nations of the world. Kings and Queens from around the world came to him. It is clear to see that God wanted this to work better than it did. Nevertheless, there is still an example here. The Queen of Sheba came up to Israel during Solomon's reign. She took Judaism back to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian people became believers of the old covenant. These facts can be verified by studying Ethiopian history and archaeology.

The story did not stop with the Queen of Sheba for the Ethiopians. Later on, in the story of Acts, Philip shares the completion of the gospel with an Ethiopian Eunuch. The Eunuch already understood the old covenant. Philip explained to the Eunuch who Jesus was from Isaiah. The Eunuch became a believer in the New Covenant and went back to Ethiopia to explain the rest of the story to them. This is probably the best example in history of a "Jewish" people becoming Christian en masse.

There are so many examples in the old testament that speak about the nations. I will not try to quote them all. Many of them can be found in the prophets, because it was something that God was trying to teach his people.

If we are to obedient to our Lord, then we should of course pay attention to Jesus' words to his disciples before he ascended into heaven:
All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
(Matthew 28).


If we are to understand these words of Jesus, we need to pay attention to what he said. He asks us to make disciples. Disciples are followers of Jesus. But pay attention, he doesn't speak just of individuals, but of nations too. They are very important to Jesus. I consider it to be an interesting and vital note at this point that Jesus did not ask his followers to start churches or to build temples, he asked them to make more followers and to teach them to obey Jesus' commands. Again, in Jesus' commands there is nothing about planting churches, building churches or establishing a priestly temple system.  (But, that is probably for another post.)

There is a parallel in Jesus' words, from the very first command that God gave in Genesis. God told people to "go out into all the world and multiply". This is exactly the same principle that Jesus applied to his disciples- "go out into all the world and multiply followers of me and of all nations." There is an eternal godly principle here of multiplication to the point of filling the earth with God's glory. And I believe that God deserves nothing less than the earth being full of his glory.

If you take anything away from this post, I hope it is that the nations have always been a massive part of God revealing his glory in the earth, and that he will get his desire, but is very patient in doing so.

More in part 3 about how to define a nation, and whether every nation has a part to play in God's eternal glory.

Series: Empire, the Kingdom of God and Nations- a biblical and political perspective. Part 1: Nations in the Bible

This is the first post in a series on the topics of Empire, Kingdom of God and Nations. I would like to have a look at each of these topics from both a biblical and political perspective. The goal is to better understand what God thinks about these topics and how we should live out following Jesus in this context.

A good place to start this series is probably at the beginning of the chronological biblical story. The first of these concepts that arises in scripture is that of a nation. It is easy to read a word without considering the full meaning, the mistake being to interpret nation as a political nation state. This is surely one of the definitions of nation, but not the first one we come across in scripture.

The tower of Babel becomes the starting point for the discussion. I won't go into this stories dating in history- that is perilously hard to do. One thing is certain from this story though- this is where the nations rebelled against God. The people rose up with pride in their hearts, "Hey, we should build a really great city, it will have a huge tower as its centrepiece, that will reach even up into the heavens, we will become famous and powerful. God will not be able to send us out across the world like he wants us to do, because in our great power we will do what we want." God sees their rebellion and says, "anything that they want to do will be accomplished, their pride must be ended." God decides to confuse their common lingua franca, and the people are stuck with their tribal dialects. They give up on their plans of world domination, and set out to live separately from one another, just as God intended when he said "go into all the world and multiply."

This is the story in the Bible where the nations are scattered. It is not exactly the story where the nations are born. There is a clear outline of the birth of the nations in Genesis 10. What ever date you place the tower of Babel, the nations were already coming into view before the tower. Each section of descent in Genesis 10 concludes with, "these were the descendants, identified by clan, language, territory and national identity."  "All the nations of the earth descended from these clans after the great flood."

A linguistic world view that allows for multilingualism allows for each of these clans to have their own language at the same time as a common language existed. Many a time people have viewed this story and concluded that it was a curse from God to create multiple languages. This is simply not true, the various languages had already developed. God confused the common language, not as a curse, but as a means of grace, so that they would fulfil his plans and multiply to fill the earth. 


This alternative view, that God acted in grace at Babel, allows us to see that the nations are a good thing in God's sight. This altered world view is further confirmed in the story of Abraham in Genesis 12. (Some time into the distant future after Babel.) God promises Abraham that he will become a great nation and that "all nations on earth will be blessed through you." God had a positive plan for all of the nations. He chose to make a nation out of Abraham.

The nations become a recurring theme of scripture from the tower of Babel, through the old testament, the new testament and up to revelation. They are dear to God's heart and a big part of his plan of salvation.

More to follow in future posts about How to Define a Nation, How to Define an Empire, What does the Bible have to say about Empires?, Are there still Empires in the world today?, What is the Kingdom of God and how does it relate to Empires and Nations?, Discipleship movements that change nations.

Invasion Day 2012

I nearly left this up with out saying anything. I will let the song speak for itself. But let me list some reasons why I can not celebrate Australia Day.

1) Aboriginal languages and cultures are still dying, while we still insist that they speak English and conform to our European way of life.
2) Aboriginal peoples are denied the right to self determination.
3) As European Australians we do not admit that our own cultures are as much guests in Australia as the ones that come after us.
4) Refugees are being turned away, while both sides of politics do not want to freely allow boat people in. They can get away with this because the majority of Australians feel the same way.
5) While we may have said sorry for the stolen generations, our actions do not say sorry.
6) While we may have said sorry for the stolen generations, we have never said sorry for the many generations of genocide that went on before.
7) Because even my mates will scoff at Aunty Joy when she gives a welcome to country at an AFL match (the indigenous match between Richmond and Essendon), saying things like "it's our land now, we kicked them off it" or "can't they find someone more eloquent to speak for them".

I could sit here longer and rant longer, but it will just get me worked up. I want to see a day when Australian Aboriginal peoples are truly respected and valued for what they can teach us. When we have that attitude I think we will find that they are happy to welcome us to their traditional lands- mutual respect will be fostered. Until that day happens there will never be a true Australia Day.

---------------------------------------
A little post script edit for the end of Invasion Day 2012- let Yothu Yindi have the last word.

Treaty now, treaty yeah!

#SOPA Free speech under threat.

I'm going to exercise my right to free speech while I still can. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but the western world has definitely taken a turn for the worse. There was some kind of move taken to either (a) allow terrorists through the gate in September 2001 or at the very least (b) exploit the event to bring fear and severely curb civil liberties after the fact.

I'm kind of sick of the whole Republican vs Democrat debate. Both Bush and Obama have done as much to reduce civil liberties as the other. Fear is killing America and the virus is infecting us all. One of the founding fathers of America, Benjamin Franklin, said "any society that gives up a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both." Every move made over the last ten years has served to chain Americans.

2011 was a monumental year for protests around the world. It was called the year of the protester by Time magazine. (Yet even Time magazine was caught not showing pictures of Arab protests on their cover in America, when they did everywhere else in the world.) No one doubts the pivotal role the internet had in helping protesters succeed. Yet when the Occupy Wall Street movement started in the US, they have been censored far more than any of the Arab protesters were. Why?

How is it possible that such censorship can happen in America, the "land of the free"? Many of the media companies are run by older people who are conservative and do not understand how the internet works. But there is perhaps something more sinister going on. At a very base level fear is controlling political decisions, but perhaps at a more sinister level there is a conspiracy for absolute totalitarian power going on. The record companies and film companies are also run by old conservatives who do not understand what the internet is even about.

The US Congress is now debating a bill called Stop Online Piracy Act. The stated aim is to protect copyright for the entertainment industry, but it will effectively cripple free speech in so many domains, rendering the internet impotent.

This You Tube video explains it well (unless it gets censored some time soon):

There are two possibilities here:

1) The entertainment industry is tired and outdated, yet the media moguls (Rupert Murdoch especially) have too much sway with congress, and so their petty whinge is killing free speech.

OR

2) The bill is actually a more sinister attempt to kill free speech, with copyright being used as a facade and a smoke screen.

As far as the entertainment industry is concerned, the tired people who run it should get with the times. Apple has done a great job of providing iTunes, an accessible way to buy music, movies and tv. TV and Movies are still way too expensive most of the time. Essentially the entertainment industry needs a new model.

What the entertainment industry has disregarded is the population boom in the world. The sheer population of the younger generation means that people's interests are far more diverse than they were 30 years ago. Personally I think that we should all create our own music and art and give it away for free. That is perhaps the direction things are taking anyway.

The internet has brought a revolution to the world. There are always counter revolutionaries or "luddites". It remains to be seen whether their attempt to censor the internet will be successful.

If I was American I would be doing all I could to protest this. As it is, I am an ineffectual Aussie, tucked away in Siberia. I hope my blog is powerful enough to make some people think.

Carbon pollution- my conspiracy theory

And now for my conspiracy theory. Before I drop my bomb shell, may I go on the record as saying I am an environmentalist and I do despise pollution. I do believe in clean energy and I do hope for a cleaner tomorrow.

Here's my bombshell. Global warming induced by carbon pollution is a croc!

That does not necessarily mean I do no think that climate change could be occurring. But let me leave that  argument for a little later. I am saying that I think the theory that says carbon and fossil fuels are causing the atmosphere to overheat, is a conspiracy.

Instead of stringing you along let me give my reason first and then attempt to back it up.

Here are some facts:
-Global oil supply will not last for ever. Pessimists say that oil supply is already in decline. Optimists say that the peak of oil production will come in 2020 or even a little later. After this point the amount of global oil supply will reach its peak for a season. Once its peak is reached there will be a decline. This is based upon a pattern that has occurred with all oil wells in the past. It is derived from a mathematical formula called the Hubbert Curve. At the point of this decline, the price of oil will begin to sky rocket and people will not be able to afford to drive their oil fuelled cars anymore. Then after that at some point the oil would run out altogether.

-The population of people driving cars in the world is exponentially increasing. This is only speeding up the imbalance between supply and demand when it comes to oil.

So the fact is, the world will run out of oil and people will not be able to run their cars anymore. Without some major long term structural changes to society, entire economies will cease to function as we have become ultra dependent on cars (not to mention the other purposes oil serves).

What is the solution to this problem?
The solution is to get people off an oil dependency on to other forms of energy. This is now so widely accepted that it seems a no-brainer. But it has taken decades of "education" to get people to hold this world view.
That oil is running out, I do not doubt. My theory however is that governments and oil companies of the world have known this fact for decades. In fact it has been known since Hubbert developed his curve in the 50s, and it was predicted that America would reach peak oil production in the late 60s, prompting the oil crisis of the 70s. That oil crisis of the 70s saw a major restructuring in the world- the rise of Arab Oil economies; the decision to make the US Dollar the currency of international trade; the decision to take gold out of the equation as a guarantee for the value of the US Dollar. And those decisions are the bedrock of the current financial crisis in the world.
So my conspiracy theory is that governments made a decision on a strategy to wean the world off oil. And the oil companies convinced the governments to time this strategy for when oil actually started to decline, so that they could still reap maximum profits before that.
The strategy decided upon was to convince the masses to stop using oil and to move to alternative energies. But how could they convince us? We are so car dependent that to simply stop using our cars is madness!!! madness I tell you!!  And why would we voluntarily want to just pay more for alternative energies without a good reason for doing so. Positive incentives never seem to work either on people. So negative incentives had to be found.
It is easier to convince the world that we are all doomed. It is easier to convince the world to stop using oil, because if we don't we will kill our grand children. Negative incentives such as global warming and carbon taxes are invented to convince people that we need to switch to alternative energies. It is a weak claim to say- "just stop using the oil, because you will breathe more cleanly" or "just stop driving the car and get out and walk or ride and enjoy the sunshine."
But with fear as a motivator we are all convinced that we need to do something good for our planet. We don't complain when prices sky rocket, we don't complain where burdensome taxes are placed on us, because it is for the good of the planet and our grandchildren.

So we have been given a different reason to switch to alternative energies than the real reason.

The truth: We need to switch to alternative energies because oil will eventually run out.
The reason people would not believe this truth: It sounds fanciful, distant, and alternative energies have been far more expensive in the short term than oil.

The lie: Oil is killing our planet. We need to switch to alternative energies to stop global warming.

Some incriminating facts that expose the conspiracy:
-Governments have discouraged and forbidden development of electric cars for decades in the past. It has only been in recent years that they are allowing development to go ahead, neatly timed for a transitional switch over as oil supply declines.

-The Australian and State governments are not overly interested in increasing public transport. I.e if they believed that burning oil was damaging to the environment they could take far more effective action in the short term to reduce car usage.

-Very little is being done to switch to alternative energies in Australia. While oil is in danger of running out, there is still plenty of coal to go around in Australia. Coal fired energy plants are increasing, not decreasing. The plants that burn uncleanly are not being cleaned up.

-A carbon tax is simply a method to provide negative incentive, to help people believe the lie that carbon is the killer.

-Al Gore is one of the canaries in the mine that expose the conspiracy. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" is very out dated now because the predictions in it are not even coming true. He is a trader in carbon credits. Carbon trading stands to become a major world wide commodity even by 2015. Mean while Al Gore has a large mansion with multiple cars, and is constantly flying around the world. His actions do not line up with someone who believes in carbon induced global warming.

-On a recent trip to Finland I saw some of the hypocrisy that exists within the European Union. The EU is supposed to be the most responsible when it comes to combating global warming. Petrol prices are extremely high ($2.20 a litre) in Europe, being heavy on the taxes.
Yet I noticed a couple of glaring inconsistencies. In Finland infant milk formula comes in ready serve packages of one litre or even single serve 250ml packages. This means a lot of extra packaging is required, than simply using powder. The Finns have the cleanest water in the world, so water should not be a problem. So much extra energy is spent on all of that unnecessary packaging.
Finland have recently eliminated sea/ surface mail as an option. All mail must now go by air. But as air travel burns so much more fossil fuels than land or sea travel this seems a ridiculous decision to make.

If Finland really believed in carbon induced global warming they would not allow seamail to be eliminated, nor would they allow such copious production of packaging.

Finland has thousands upon thousands of lakes. They have more fresh water than they could ever possibly use. Yet they clean and recycle ALL of their water that they use. They are constantly telling people to use water carefully. A lot of energy needs to be spent on cleaning all of that water.

What about climate change?
I think it is still too early to prove if our climate is completely changing. But there are certainly some signs that point in this direction. But some facts should be taken into account:

-The magnetic north pole is moving in one steady direction away from Canada towards Russia at a pace of 55km a year. At the rate it is going it appears to be on a course to flip. Nobody can really say what affect this could have on climate. What we do know is that the magnetic poles have flipped before. We have also had times of major climate change in the past, both warming and cooling of the planet (and they were never affected by carbon pollution).

-The sun is producing an increasing amount of solar flares. Solar flares always account for hotter weather on earth. The sun is the source of all energy on earth. The sun is also responsible for our basic weather of Summer and Winter, based on proximity to the sun. It should be no surprise if the sun is actually the biggest influence in climate change. The sun is far more powerful than any change we can effect as humans.

Conclusions:
I do not deny climate change. I think it is affected by such factors as the movement of the magnetic north pole and increase in solar flares.
I do not think climate change is brought about by global warming, induced by carbon pollution.
We do need to move away from oil usage to alternative energies; but this is because oil will run out and because it's nice to breathe clean air.
Governments have been cooking up the global warming conspiracy for decades as a method of fear to convince us to transition to alternative energies, instead of us being caught in a crisis with no oil and no options.

I can't understand why people prefer to believe a lie and live in fear all their lives? There are far more positive reasons for change and we don't need to be held to ransom by controlling taxing governments.

Transforming Melbourne towards being car free

A strong argument against the car free concept is the presence of existing cities and peoples' dependence upon these cities for their livelihood. Moving towards car reduced societies takes a two pronged approach. Building car free cities is for the visionaries and for the people with financial access to such concepts. These new cities will likely be beacons for the concept. The other approach needed is to gradually transform existing cities to move towards a more car free lifestyle.

Many European cities have begun this process. They are gradually introducing car free districts. Car free districts become centres of lively culture and usually attract people to their charm. The city of Melbourne in Australia could take a number of steps in this direction.

Melbourne as a city was extensively designed as a city before the existence of the car. The inner suburbs of the city would function much better in a way that is closer to their original planning.


Trams

Melbourne prides itself in its extensive tram network that covers the inner suburbs. The fact is though that trams and cars find it very hard to co-exist in Melbourne. Trams and pedestrians have right of way at tram stops. Cars must wait for them to start moving again before being allowed to pass. This often means that a car trip in inner Melbourne is not a lot faster than a tram anyway. Many Melburnians would be loathed to get rid of the tram network as Adelaide and Sydney mostly did. Trams are a part of Melbourne culture and its residents wish it to stay that way. A process of removing cars from inner Melbourne would help trams to flourish in Melbourne again. They could run at much higher frequency and make mobility on public transport very effective.

Map of Melbourne tram network

The spaces vacated by cars could be given over to bikes. To make the city more aesthetically pleasing it would not simply be a matter of bicycles riding on the roads that cars once drove on. This of course would be the case in the early stages. In more advanced stages though roads could be replaced by landscaping that includes grass, trees, bike paths and foot paths.
Arguments against the model
An argument against this might be that some people live too far from a tram stop. This can easily be tackled by installing extra tram lines on some roads between the major arterials, so that no residents have too far to walk to a tram stop.
Another argument pertains to how delivery of freight, retail and grocery goods would be carried out. It is important to move away from a car dominated paradigm, and remember that there was a world before the car. There were also deliveries of freight and goods in those days too. The best way to tackle this issue is to have delivery hub depots. Depots would use some existing railway networks and tram networks. From the depots smaller electric carts with special permits would carry out delivery to the final address.

Trains

Melbourne has a very good rail network. Unfortunately it is about as good as it was in the 1890s when it was world class, second only to London, more advanced than New York and Paris. It was better in the 1920s than it is now, some lines actually having been removed.
Trains also do not get along with cars very well. There are currently 182 level railway crossings in Melbourne. The Victorian government have budgeted $379 million towards the removal of railway crossings. They have ten projects planned. At close to an average of $40 million per railway crossing, the over all project to remove all of the railway crossings in Melbourne could easily stretch to and beyond $8 billion.
Many people would say that trains are interrupting the smooth flow of cars. A cursory look at history will show that Melbourne had all of its train lines before the car came along, so it is not trains that are interrupting cars. In fact the historical population growth of Melbourne largely coincides with the development of its railway network. It is now, when the railway network is not keeping up with Melbourne's transport demands that people are beginning to say that the transport network is breaking down. The fact remains that Melbourne was planned around its train networks and will only function well when depending on its train networks.
A friend of mine came up with a brilliant plan to remove all of the railway crossings in Melbourne. Instead of removing them one by one and putting in bridges (this is a very slow process that takes years), each of the railway lines in Melbourne should be replaced by underground tunnels. This could only be done in stages, one railway line at a time. It would create some pain for the residents in that region while the project was being carried out, but after the fact things would flow so much better. A complete new underground train line could be constructed for much faster trains, which would cut down travel times immensely and make them far more attractive than the car.
When a train line is put under ground there is then a lot of real estate available above the train line. This could be used for various purposes. Bike highways could be installed which would enable cyclists to get to the city centre in record time. Much of the land could also be sold, which would easily finance the entire project. Every train station could have retail, commercial or residential property installed above it. This would not prevent bike highways passing through.


This proposed plan does not remove any cars from Melbourne as such. What it does do is make trains and bikes a lots more appealing and efficient, which would cut down the number of cars on the road. The current model of putting bridges in at level crossings is not creating any real estate or revenue to pay for the projects.

Map of Melbourne train network

New forms of transport
As roads are vacated in inner Melbourne suburbs a lot of land will become available for other purposes. Some roads could have either trams put in their place or new underground rail lines to link up with the rest of the network. This would enable badly needed circle lines to be implemented, making connections easier on a trip across the city.

Other roads could simply be removed and replaced with bike paths, foot paths and park land. (Light electric carts could use these paths to access houses for deliveries with a special permit.)

Car free district phased introduction

The obvious place to start with a car free district is the central business district. From the Docklands development in the west to Spring Street in the east would be completely car free. There is plenty of public transport already in place to meet the needs of the district. Commuters who drive to the centre for work would feel inconvenienced at first. But an increase in frequency of trams and trains would mean that they could drive to a train station if they had a long way to travel.

A later phase of introduction would wait some years until people had adjusted to the new paradigm for the city centre. Eventually Melbourne could become car free as far as the tram network already exists. Once new underground train lines had been developed, expansion of car free districts could continue for decades to come.

It has taken a century for humanity to become as dependent upon cars as we have. It may take a century to wean ourselves off them again. It would certainly take decades to transform Melbourne completely.

Increased cultural vitality

Cities of the world that have begun to introduce car free districts have found that street life and cultural activities naturally begin to increase in those districts. People naturally begin to flock to these districts from the outside to enjoy the new vibrancy that occurs on streets where people are happy to be outdoors. The lack of car noise makes the streets peaceful and safe for people to be on.

When the central business district has this appeal for a decade or so, it will become more appealing to expand car free zones.

Global financial crisis- where has all the money gone?

The global financial crisis has got many thinking. In fact it has many worrying quite a lot. It has got me thinking, but thankfully not worrying. Where did all the money go?
There have been great losses on share markets across the world. This apparently was brought about my financial institutions collapsing due to bad losses on credit. Simply put they lent out too much money, or more accurately lent out money to people who could not repay the loans. These bad debts have triggered the crisis. There is no doubt that the greed of many banks in the US is to blame.

I have always thought of money as a finite resource. I am sure that many have thought the same. But I am coming to change the way I understand that concept. It used to be that a nation would only print as much money as represented the gold that they had in reserve. Back in those times, money was a finite concept. To go even further back in history, people had gold and silver coins, and there were no banks. Of course they could always find more gold in the ground. How things have changed in todays world.

Money is now a relative concept, not finite. It is fitting that such a concept has come about in a post modern world. The house of cards that is the US economy is crashing down. The rest of the world have been attaching our own economies to the US economy, and now the whole thing seems to be crashing down. Recent news reports have said that the global economy has now come to a complete stand still. This means that there is no net economic growth in the world, in fact there are losses, and this is what economic recession is.

But what is economic growth anyway? Well it represents productivity in a society, be that national or global. So there are some tangible things to attach the concept to. On a tangible level we have seen factories closing all over Russia and China. They are no longer productive. (India is still productive and I believe Canada is too.) If there is no product then there is no money. It's a little like if there is no wheat then there is no food for us to eat. Just like there can be a bumper crop of wheat some years, there can also be a bumper crop of money.

A bumper crop of money is when banks reap big dividends. People pay back their loans. Companies post big profits and their value soars. Essentially this means there is more money around to work with. Yes it is true that banks fictitiously create money, but this is only a part of the picture. In today's global economy money needs to be circulated. None of us need to hold on to the money all the time, so it is circulated around for some one else to use. It's a bit like a game of musical chairs. And just recently a whole bunch of chairs have been taken away.

Where did all the money go? Not into the hands of some other person. The money simply disappeared, burned in a fire, got washed away out to sea. Since there is less money to circulate, companies can not afford to pay their staff. This means that productivity goes down. Since there is less money to circulate, people become afraid to spend and then consumer demand drops, so productivity is in essence no longer needed.

Three quarters of Australia's economy depends on consumer spending. I am confident that many other western economies are built on similar principles. If we all spend our money happily then it will circulate and demand for productivity will go up.

Recently Kevin Rudd (Australian prime minister) thinks he knows the solution. He says that it is time to bring an end to traditional capitalism, and that a new age of social capitalism needs to begin. It sounds like a big experiment to me. Somehow I think the SRC School president does not know what he is talking about. Australia's economy is headed for a major deficit and a deep recession. The word depression is not on people's lips yet. But I think that is now a possibility.

Spend your money happily. It may be worth nothing tomorrow anyway.

Mugabe must go

It's been quite a while since I have talked about Mugabe. Every day he makes me sicker.

Dear Lord, please bring an end to this evil man's regime and do it soon, any way that you must.

Where to start? Thousands are dying daily from cholera now. Eighty percent of the country are in abject poverty. The only people who have any money are his army. Just today he has issued the "trillion dollar banknote" series. If you think that sounds crazy, it was just last week that the billion dollar bank not series was released, but those notes have already lost value.

Recently Mugabe told a gathering of African leaders that he would never give up Zimbabwe, and that he "owns it". We have long suspected that he believes that, but to hear it is the absolute pits. I guess the west is standing by wanting African leaders to do something about him. South Africa have dropped the ball. Jacob Zuma is implicitly to blame. Desmond Tutu has even admitted that South Africa have lost international credibility for doing nothing.

I didn't write on this topic during the last Zimbabwe election, because I hoped beyond hope that Mugabe would step down, but he did not. The power sharing arrangement has been a farce.

I really don't want to write about this again until he is gone, and I pray that is very soon.

Who is the evil empire?

I feel compelled to comment on the current conflict that has been occurring within the Caucasus. The media have the wool pulled over our eyes. They want us to believe that the USA, EU and NATO are wonderful benevolent forces that are above approach.

Let me postulate a few ideas for you:

1) The US and OPEC countries formed an agreement in the 1960s that led to all oil being traded in US dollars. This has led to unprecedented wealth for the US and for the major oil producing countries.
2) Iraq was the first country to threaten to break from this agreement. Aside from America's many reasons for going to war in Iraq, no one can dispute that oil was a part of the equation. If Iraq broke from the agreement and did not trade in US dollars it may have started a chain that would see the collapse of the US economy. Iraq was suggesting they would trade in Euros instead, a point which put France and Germany against the military actions of the US. Interestingly, USA's biggest ally, Britain does not have the Euro.
3) Iran are a large oil producing country, they are also considering breaking from the 1960s agreement.
4) The US would love to have a strategic and secure military base in Georgia, which would put them on Iran's doorstep.
5) Georgia has been enemies of the Abkhazians and Ossetians long before the Russian empire.
6) The conflict is really two empires rubbing up against each other.

South Ossetia have a legitimate claim to independence, just as much as Kosovo does. They voted for their independence in 2006. They have operated as a de facto country since 2006, with the protection of Russian peacekeepers. Georgia attacked South Ossetia first in an attempt to gain "territorial integrity" to secure their bid to join NATO and ultimately the EU.

Anyway, please have a look at the videos and read the article and have an open mind.

Western media use pictures to tell lies.
Twelve year old girl tells the truth about Georgia.
Well reasoned historical explanation about Georgia and why they are guilty.

What is the biggest cause of death in the world today?

Just recently I stumbled upon a really cool little website when searching for a world clock. It's choc full of statistics, and numbers are something I can really relate to. The website has different categories, one of them caught my eye.

The world death count (causes of death).

What are some of the biggest causes of death in the media today?

Traffic accidents are certainly talked about a lot. A lot of money is poured into making us feel guilty for going 5 kms over the speed limit. Death count in 2008 to date: 695 290

Of course cancer is also a big cause of death, and God forbid that you are brave enough to stick a cigarette in your mouth in public these days, you just might get lynched. Death count in 2008: 4 242 159

What of HIV-AIDS? A cause of death that affects Africa in a big way and is largely and sadly quite unnecessary. Death count: 1 810 070.

Cardiovascular disease is the biggest commonly recognised cause of death in the world. A percentage of this statistic is also filled by people who die of old age. Death count: 9 764 500 and counting.

What of war? Surely it ravages so many lives. (And by the way I know that it does, and living refugees are huge victims of war.)
Death count: 99 972 (Much smaller than traffic accidents.)

But there is one cause of death that dwarfs all these statistics, in fact it is a higher cause of death than all the above combined. Abortion so far in 2008 has killed 22 million, 652 thousand and counting, very rapidly. Abortion is the hidden killer, we hear very little about it in the media. The figure in Australia every year is about 100 000. It is a staggering statistic to know that abortion kills SO much more lives than any other cause.

I'm not an abortion activist. I am motivated by lives staring me in the face, that hopefully when changed will shun such evil. Prevention after all is better than cure. But these figures are just evil. I challenge anyone out there to tell me how such greedy massacre is at all acceptable.

Australia needs to clean up before hosting more major sporting events

There would be few in Australia who would argue today that it was not a wonderful thing for Sydney to host the Olympic games in 2000. I attended some events in Sydney and was there enjoying the atmosphere with hundreds of thousands of other Australians and also international people. I had the pleasure of having my photo taken with a gold medalist. I was there in the main Olympic stadium cheering on our athletes towards the prize of a medal. I was there in Darling Harbour with 5 000 others watching Cathy Freeman win the 400m gold, and in tears knew that this was a great moment for reconciliation between Indigenous and European Australia.

But still there were some noises from the international media about Australia having human rights issues, because of the conditions that many indigenous Australians live in. Some sports followers despise the connection of politics with sport. But to be a sports lover and to ignore politics is wrong. We can not enjoy ourselves while our brothers and sisters are suffering around us.

Once again, in an Olympic year the issue of human rights has hit the headlines again. Chinese oppression of Tibetan monks and freedom protesters in Tibet has caused a lot of controversy around the world. Olympic torch relays have been interrupted. People have debated about whether protesters should have interrupted the torch relays. Mean while, China has mostly deflected the international criticism and told the world to stay out of their internal matters. Effectively, we the international community have been told to "mind our own business."

Many in Australia have joined the protest call for Tibetans to be given their democratic rights and choose their own path in the world. This point of view is the overwhelmingly correct political path to take. I also agree with this point of view. But how is it, that we in Australia also managed to deflect much of the international criticism handed our way during the Sydney Olympics? Now it appears that the world doesn't bother us too much, and we are allowed to go our own way, for better or worse.

I along with millions of Australians shed tears on February 13th when the Federal government apologised to the stolen generations of indigenous Australians. It was an important and long overdue step for our nation, and many Aboriginal people were grateful for the apology and step taken. May 13th followed February 13th with a $718.7 million budget pledge to "Close the Gap" between the quality of life for indigenous Australians and European Australians. The government deserve a chance to get it right and implement their policies. But it has to be said, that quality of life for indigenous Australians has to be among our highest priorities in Australia.

We love and adore our sport in Australia. We love nothing more than seeing an international team perform well. We love nothing more than hosting a major international tournament. But what happens, the next time we host a major international sports tournament such as a Football World Cup and the life expectancy of indigenous Australians is still 17 years less than the rest of the population? The rest of the world will look on Australia again and call to attention our human rights problems. Am I being pessimistic to say that the situation will not have improved by then? Time will tell, but money thrown at a problem does not usually solve it.

We can spend tax dollars on earning major international sporting events, but when we host them, is our country really worth showing off to the world? I argue that we need to earn the right to host these major tournaments. As a country we need to sort out our own problems before we start boasting to the rest of the world that our country is in order.

We owe it to the the original and continual custodians of Gondwana land. The Great South Land can still be as great as the one it could have been.

Malcolm Speed sacked from ICC- world split in cricket inevitable.

I haven't written anything about Zimbabwe in a while. This may seem strange considering their recent election. The truth is, I was holding out silent hope that Mugabe could actually be ousted this time. The weeks have gone by and he has not stood down yet, all the while more and more people continue to be arrested. It seems 165 000% inflation is not high enough, perhaps he is reaching for a cool million. What ever the story, Zimbabwe is fast turning into the biggest disaster on the planet. I am not sure of the number of deaths that have occurred there, but perhaps the figures should be compared with Rwanda, Sudan and Ethiopia, just a few of the African disasters of recent years. How long will the world stand idly by?

I had always thought Malcolm Speed was impotent in his role of Chief Executive of the ICC, in that he allowed Mugabe to continue to receive the money given to Zimbabwe cricket. Many Zimbabwe players, including black players like Henry Olonga left the team and country to protest the dictatorship of Mugabe. Now I read that Speed has been stood down from his job for finally standing upon principle and wanting Zimbabwe removed from world cricket (this is the only way to stop ICC money ending up in Mugabe's pockets). I still largely think Speed is impotent for not having spoken up sooner, but good on him for doing so at this point.

The British government have previously said that they will not allow a Zimbabwe touring side into England. This would effect next year's Twenty 20 world championship. The ICC have said that if Britain take this stance, the tournament will be moved. It is well known that political forces in South Africa and India do not want to punish Zimbabwe. This is misplaced vengeance against the former British Empire.

The ICC no longer represent all interests in cricket. The Twenty 20 championship next year will likely not be held in England. A recent comment I read from an English person supported the idea of preferring a Standford sponsored Twenty 20 premier league in England over the world championship. The rifts in world cricket are widening. A split is in the making. Eighty percent of Australia's current contracted players have lost faith in the ICC now. Personally I want the revolution to come. I want test cricket to survive. However, I think that Australia will always play England, West Indies and New Zealand in test matches.

Why say sorry?

Today I am basking in the after glow of one of the most important and historic days for Australia. I finally managed to watch the full 30 minute speech after midnight, but was happy to get to bed late so as to somehow feel included in such a momentous occasion for Australia. I watched in sadness and joy as so many Aboriginal people said thank you for the apology. There were so many tears, but there was also a release, and understanding that perhaps a Federal government would actually start listening to them.
Previous governments may have claimed that they were doing all that was possible to help Indigenous Australia. But there was an important factor missing. Previous governments did not acknowledge the pain that Aboriginals experienced. It is a little like the addage of the past "Children should be seen and not heard.... or "Speak when you are spoken to." Previous Australian governments have had attitudes of paternalism towards Aboriginal cultures, believing that they would tell Aboriginal people what was best for them.
The only way forward is to listen to Aboriginal peoples and to act in partnership with them.

Some Australians, Brendan Nelson (leader of the opposition) in particular have claimed that this current generation does not own the actions of previous generations. That may be so, but we can apologise on their behalf. The response of so many stolen generations people yesterday shows that they appreciate the apology. Is it really that hard to say sorry? Isn't this one of the first things that our parents taught us when we were little?

Daniel and Nehemiah in the Bible both chose to repent of the sins of their nation from previous generations. They were both godly men, but they also knew that no one is without sin. They repented for the sins of the Israelites that worshipped false idols even though they did not worship these idols themselves. As Christians, this should be enough of a Biblical precedent for us to do the same.

One Liberal politician, Tuckey, made a point of saying the Lord's Prayer loudly at the opening of Parliament, and then promptly walked out. This is hardly a good witness.

Patrick Dodson, an Aboriginal leader even spoke of forgiveness in The Age newspaper this morning. Wow, there really is hope and I am excited about this.

Apology and Forgiveness will open the doors for true spiritual blessing on Australia. Perhaps if Australians want to see rain, we should say sorry first.

I'm sorry too

The official wording of the apology given by Australian Federal Parliament today to the stolen generations of Australian Indigenous Peoples:

"Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia."

I for one lend my support to all of the above words. A national sorry movement has been going for over ten years now. I remember signing the national sorry book when I was a student at university. Some may claim that as they had nothing to do with the past grievances that they have nothing to apologise for. There is no grace in this attitude. These are grievances between races and nations. For healing to happen, our current generation must apologise for the "sins of our fathers". Otherwise we perpetuate the same grievances in the present day.

I am sorry Indigenous Australia for all the pain, we as white settlers have caused you over the last two centuries. I am also especially sorry for the pain we caused you in taking away your children during the stolen generations.

In the spirit of reconciliation, I humbly ask that Indigenous Australia forgive White Australia for our sins. Let us move forward as One Country together while at the same time respecting each others cultural diversity and languages.

For those Canadians, Europeans and Americans who do not understand this issue you can watch a movie called "Rabbit Proof Fence." Please do not judge us. All nations have sins that require repentance.

God Bless all Australians, and may we one day truly be known as the Great South Land of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry speeches

I had a read of Brendan Nelson's speech. It was full of half hearted excuses for the mistakes of the past and a half hearted sorry. I can understand why people booed at his speech. I'm not a fan of the Labor government or Kevin Rudd. But on this occasion I applaud their actions in a sincere apology to the indgenous peoples of Australia.

I managed to watch a 2:30 min version of the speech on you tube, but some how it did not capture the entire imagination of Australia, being here in Siberia on such a historic day for our country. I say country, because it is important that we acknowledge that our country is made up of many "nations" or ethnic groups. The word nation better reflects an ethnic group. Australia is therefore a Federal State made up of many ethnic groups.

I particularly enjoyed watching the "Welcome to Country" ceremony indigenous dance and music, to open Parliament. It is nice to be welcomed in Australia by the indigenous peoples. This is a wonderful sentiment, followed up by a sincere apology from parliament. It is now my hope and prayer that indigenous Australia forgive us for our sins of the past.

I believe in you Ricky Ponting

I can't believe how much tripe the media forces down our throats these days.

Let's establish some of the facts. Yes Australian players have been guilty of verbal sledging for a long time. But let's not be naive here though, other teams in world cricket have also done the same. Perhaps the reggae loving calypso kings of the 70s did not, but it has been common. Secondly there is a politically correct disease going around which basically says that all westerners should feel eternally guilty for racism while the former victims of the colonial world can lash out as much as they please with no condemnation at all.

Modern sporting institutions have tried to bring some equality to the playing field. I have generally little respect to the ICC, because they are corrupt and have pandered to the unequal demands of sub-continent countries and Zimbabwe in the past. But I do have respect for the ICC when they demand that the rules must be adhered to in the issue of abuse and racism.

Australia have now been the strongest team in cricket for around 15 years, and their reign is beginning to eclipse that of the West Indies before them. Other countries are tired of Australia winning all the time, and are finding any excuse to point the finger.

Back to the cold hard facts. When Australia toured India in October for a series of one day games, Harbajan Singh was guilty of calling Andrew Symonds a monkey, quite publicly. Apparently he believed that Symonds mixed African and European background has the appearance of a monkey. Spectators latched on to this and were also calling Symonds a monkey from the stand. Andrew Symonds was very big about this. Behind the scenes the Australians and Indians talked together and agreed that such talk would not happen again.

In the second test of the current series in Sydney, things flared up again. Harbajan Singh hit Brett Lee on the backside with his bat. Andrew Symonds felt this was over the line and confronted Singh on the matter. Singh proceeded with more monkey insults against Symonds. At the close of play on day 3, Anil Kumble (the Indian captain) requested Ricky Ponting (the Australian captain) to not make a formal complaint, but Ponting informed Kumble he had already done so.

At this point it must be mentioned that Ponting had done no wrong in reporting Singh. Singh had gone back on their verbal agreement from October. Kumble was hoping that it would blow over, but Symonds was offended and Ponting was within his rights to make the complaint.

The media had wildly attacked Ponting and the Australian team as bad sports. They have cited that Australia have often sledged and can not take their own medicine. But what does the media know of the things that have been said on the field in the past? The climate is changing, other teams have been guilty in the past, and all are expected to abide by the rules now, not just the Australians.

During the second test there were some bad decisions made by the umpires. Allegedly, Steve Bucknor made new fewer than 6 bad decisions. Of these decisions one went against Ricky Ponting and the other for him. When Ricky Ponting was given out LBW and he hid not agree, he stayed at the crease too long (as many a batsmen has done before accepting the umpires decision). When he returned to the dressing room he threw his bat on the floor. The cameras should not be allowed in the dressing rooms. this was Ponting's own place to let out his frustration. His frustration would have been as much in his failure for the fourth time this series as with an umpiring decision he did not like.

Whether Ponting was a bad sport over his dismissal is not actually connected to his formal complaint over racism. But the media have put all factors in one pot and labeled him as a cheat. The fact that Peter Roebuck from the Age newspaper demanded Ponting be sacked as a result is extremely arrogant, but that he went on to also demand that Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist resign over the incident makes me wonder if he is being bribed by an Indian bookmaker.

Ricky Ponting has done a lot of good for Australian cricket. In response to the accusation of arrogance he said that if his team were arrogant they would not have jumped up and down like schoolboys when they won narrowly on Sunday. If they had been arrogant they would have simply had a smug face as if they expected to win. This cricket team have always worked hard and they do not expect victory to come easily. Last year against England in Adelaide they looked as if they could lose but fought back hard to win.

The Australian cricket team are humans too. The Indian cricket team spat the dummy when they said they would go home if Harbajan Singh was not cleared. Their suspension of the tour was an act of bad sportsmanship. Ponting made an official complaint and the ICC have dealt with it through official channels. If the Indian team have complaints they can deal with it through official channels too. And the media should take their ball and go home. Let the cricketers get on with their cricket and stop interfering! As to why the Australian public have turned against Ponting, to me says that all their decisions are informed by a media with ulterior motives. Kind of reminds me of a recent election result.

My country right or wrong?

I am sad, and for now extremely ashamed to be Australian. I usually find that when I am away from my home land that my Aussie character rises as I miss certain aspects of my home and culture. But recently in Australian news I find enough reason to disassociate myself from many of my country men. It is moments like this that I realise that I am a citizen of heaven more than anything else.

Let me explain this nasty tragedy of political and societal errors for you. As far as I am concerned, Australia does not have a very good record with refugees in the first place. I really couldn't care about comparing Australia to other countries. I am talking about comparing Australia to the highest ideals possible- that which Jesus has taught us. Jesus gave a famous speech- "I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was hungry and you fed me..... when ever you have done these things for the least of me, you have done it for me..." Australia has turned away many refugees in recent years, and when they have been allowed on to our shores they have often been placed in "detention centres," which are a modern sanitary version of a concentration camp.

Well the issue has gotten worse. I was quite shocked to read recently that the Immigration Minister has shut down the quota on all refugees from Africa, citing that "they have trouble integrating into Australian society." This has been conveniently disguised as a "shifting" of priorities, to accept refugees from other countries. I can think of no needier refugee situation in the world than the plight of the Sudanese.

Have a read of the news article, here. I decided to write a comment on this issue. These were my comments:

"This saddens me deeply. Requirements for immigrants are logical, but for refugees they are completely unfair. The only test case for a refugee should be what they are running "from" not "to." The Howard government may be able to boast a long period of economic stability, but on the issue of race, it has failed dismally and shown itself as racist. Sudanese people find it hard to integrate because of the severe trauma they have been through. They would find it hard to integrate anywhere in the world. We have a responsibility to show them compassion and help them integrate, or else we are as bad as the regime that persecuted them in the first place."

Many people have made comments on the issue and most have disgusted me:

Our refugee program, like every refugee program in the Western world, has brought nothing but disaster.Transplanting people from war torn countries and brutal cultures to prosperous and peaceful nations has never worked.

I always thought it was ludicrous that refugees come from so far away, surely if they are seeking refuge, they go to the nearest safe nation. There's a couple of possible places they could go in Africa not least South Africa, failing that there is Europe of course or Asia.. Australia is further away than all of these places, since when are refugees in a position where they are able to pick and choose which coutnries they will take refuge in? Good call Kevin Andrews.


After working in several african countries (currently in Angola), I get a bad taste in my mouth when we talk about refugees from Africa. There is no doubt that there is problems in many of these countries, but if their own governments would use some of the moneys earnt from the oil, gas or mining industries which is nearly all of these countries earn, on the people of their countries, their lives and their lifestyles would be undoubtedly better. Instead the leaders line their pockets and foriegn bank accounts with ill-gotten gains and live in splendour, while the majority of their people suffer. It is sad for the average person living in these countries, but a thing to consider is whether it is the down trodden that are trying to get into australia, of the rich looking for somewhere better to spend their money.

My comments on this one: We are talking about Sudanese people being brutally slaughtered by Muslim persecutors here, they are not people just seeking a place to get rich, HAVE SOME COMPASSION!

Australia should not accept any refugees. We should withdraw from the UN agreement on refugees and stop accepting any refugees. It is far better to accept educated skilled migrants from stable peaceful countries than to take troubled refugees from troubled countries.

There are many, many more comments from the average Australian that are simply quite racist. This decision on the part of the current Australian government is racist. People have argued that Labour has supported these policies in the past and I would have to agree with that too.

I find it so hard to understand how the majority of Australians can be seeking reconciliation and forgiveness from Aboriginal Australia yet carry a racist attitude to people from cultures different to our own. After all, our ancestors were immigrants too.

This comment from another reader sums it up nicely for me:

Unbelievable!!! I don't recall African refugees harassing people on Cronulla beach..or organising revenge attacks....or having their leaders preach hatred At every opportunity, Australians shows themselves for the xenophobic racist biggots that they are!!

Racism is a sin. Like all sins we are tempted towards them first. In previous years I have heard the majority of people in Australia speak out against racism. Why the change now? I believe it is because we have a government who is giving people an excuse to allow racism into their hearts. It is a temptation of all human beings to want to only associate with people like ourselves and to reject the outsider. As the Australian government upholds racist values, Australian people are feeling justified to do the same and the attitude of the Australian population is spiralling downwards.

Am I an Australian? Yes. Do I want my country to do the right thing? Yes. Am I proud to be Australian? Sadly,today, no.

Please forgive my nation for the wrongs we have done- to Aboriginal Australia in the past and now in refusing so many people in need in today's world.

God have mercy on our nation and help us to do the right thing.

Not another eschatological theory

I usually laugh and cringe every time I see contemporary eschatological books. I too hold eschatological theories in my doctrine, but I try to keep them as simple as possible. To tell you the truth, it kind of ticks me off when people spout their eschatological theories with such confidence that they are right.

For years people have argued that the European Union which was founded by ten nations (apparently ten horns mentioned in Revelation), would be the re-emergence of the ancient Roman Empire and therefore the seat of the anti-Christ. People have also argued that the Roman Catholic church is the Great Whore Babylon referred to in Revelation.

Well, today some one put a new book into my hand. This may sound narrow minded of me, but I am not going to waste my time reading it. The enemy apparently is no longer the European Union, but instead a coalition of 10 muslim nations will rise up to become the seat of the anti-Christ. The book makes it really easy to have a "safe" enemy. We no longer have to confuse ourselves with having a European enemy (which frankly is just too close to home for comfort), now we can happily hate the muslims instead.

The author (who I can't even bothered naming and do not wish to personally berate- rather I have pity for him), apparently finally worked out his new theories after (you guessed it) September 11, 2001. This was the missing link in his theory and now he could see that an Islamic prediction of a Mahid who is supposed to convert the world to Islam, will actually be the anti-Christ.

The first problem I have with all of this conjecture is that it does not foster love in our hearts. In his theory, the Great Whore of Babylon is actually Baghdad itself (how convenient). Instead of reaching out in love to muslims, now we can justify our fears and treat them like the enemy in a coming, inevitable, biblically justified war. But the bible actually teaches that the battle we fight is not of flesh and blood and that our enemy is not to be found amongst people, but is the devil and his fallen angels.

The second problem I have with theses eschatological theories is that people like to think that Jesus is coming back really soon (in their life time) because we can see all these things unfolding before our eyes in the news every day. Isn't it funny that during the Cold War the Soviet Union used to be the big enemy and eschatologists used to talk about Russia invading Israel. Then as world events change, people come up with new theories to fit the headlines of the day. Their theories give people the excuse of thinking that Jesus is coming back really soon, therefore we don't actually have to do much more to take his gospel to the nations. (If he is coming back soon, then they must have already had their chance right?). Wrong.

When Jesus actually took the time to give his eschatology he was careful to explain that the gospel must first be preached to all nations and THEN the end would come. There are still over 6000 unreached ethnic nations in the world. And sorry to say it, but the church is simply moving too slowly for that task to be finished in our life time. This is not a lack of faith but simply stark realism. You only have to look with your own eyes (and I have) to see how some nations are in a very dark grip to know that it is actually going to take time. There are no instant microwave fixes for this one, sorry.

I have been learning that God has a deep heart for his lost children, the nations of this world. The story of the fall in Genesis actually is completed at the tower of Babel, when the nations are scattered. This was the rock bottom consequence at the end of the fall. So if the nations being scattered and leaving God is the consequence of the fall, then the nations returning to God is the completion of salvation on earth. God deserves to settle for nothing less. As Habakkuk prophesied "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Glory of God, as the waters cover the seas." God deserves nothing less than complete glory in his earth, and he is perfectly entitled to wait as long as he wants until this world chooses to glorify him.

I am not denying that bad things happen in this world and that despots set themselves up against God, look at Robert Mugabe for goodness sake. But God is sovereign and he is not bound to bring Jesus back early because a couple of selfish muslims flew planes into buildings 6 years ago.

So my eschatology is quite simple, "the gospel must first be preached to all nations and ONLY then the end will come." This is not going to happen before this silly terrorist game is long behind us in history. In fact I predict it is actually more likely that the muslim world will turn to Jesus. And I really don't have time for another cosy, selfish, western Christian theory.

This has to end now!

Every time I hear news from Zimbabwe it just gets worse and worse and worse. The world stood by and did nothing when there was genocide in Rwanda. That was a rapid genocide. Mugabe is committing slow genocide in Zimababwe and the world is doing nothing once again. There are no excuses now, because he has been in power for nearly 30 years and everyone knows how evil he is.

Back in 2005 I met a pastor from Zibabwe. He told me how hard things were then and how much persecution they faced from the government. But he also told me that people were responding to the gospel hand over fist as they were just so desperate.

Mugabe has very effectively closed down all of his political opponents and people are all very scared of imprisonment for saying a word wrong. Inflation is now at 3500% in Zimbabwe. They just printed a $200 000 note, but I doubt that very few people are allowed to have one.

Yesterday we attended a prayer meeting and heard very alarming news from people living in Zimbabwe. The government have now made it illegal to "hoard" food. There is virtually nothing left on the shelves in the shops. One man was arrested and dragged away from a shop in handcuffs for buying four packs of toilet paper. People now have to queue for up to three hours to withdraw a maximum of $22 USD. Three million Zimbabweans have already fled to South Africa as refugees and more are leaving all the time.

Recently there was a terrible cult leader president in an Asian country which shall remain unnamed here. We prayed that he would either turn to God or that God would remove him how ever he saw fit. Within weeks the president was dead. That was God's prerogative. Once again I am not saying that Mugabe should die, but I am saying that he has to go. Zimbabwe is way past due. South Africa are sitting around doing nothing as this news article from 2 hours ago shows.

We prayed fervently for the very literal and present salvation of the Zimbabwean people. Either South Africa needs to intervene, or the West needs to intervene or God needs to intervene. But the evil despot has to go now! Please beseech God for this to happen very soon.

And ah, the ridiclous ICC should ban Zimbabwe from playing in the upcoming 20/20 cricket world champiionship. Any money awarded to Zimbabwe ends up directly in the hands of Mugabe and continues to prop up his regime.