Author: Sandra Cavallo

It’s a Christmas classic.  Baby, It’s Cold Outside was written 74 years ago, back in a day when the “Party Piece” was a highly respected form of entertainment (you know, before we all sat around tables each checking out our social media likes).

In 1944, Frank Loesser wrote, Baby, It’s Cold Outside for his wife, Lynn Garland, and himself to sing at a housewarming party in New York City.[i]  It became an instant hit that has, since that time, been featured in movies and recorded by many famous artists.  The song is always sung as a duet, usually with a man and a woman, and sometimes with the woman in the “lead” role.[ii] The lead person is trying to convince their date to stay rather than go home and, what follows, is a tongue-in-cheek exchange of reasons to stay and reasons not to.

Song Gets Cold Shoulder

But over the past few years, and more recently in light of the #MeToo movement, there have been increasing concerns about the song.  There are some lyrics that, when sung by a woman, raise concerns.  For example, “Say what’s in this drink?” And, “I ought to say no, no, no sir.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I am in no way trivialising the #MeToo movement, or what countless women have been subjected to at the hands of men, especially those in powerful roles.  I am also very aware that, as a white man, I have not had to deal with a lot of the things that others (women, people of non-white races, LGBTIQ people, etc) have been subjected to.  If someone is offended by “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” then they’re better not to listen to it.  But should it be banned as it has happened at some radio stations in the USA and Canada?

One such radio station, Star 102 Cleveland, even asked their audience, “Should we play ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ during the holiday season?”  94% said, “Yes, it’s a classic.”  The station banned the song anyway.

Meaning & Context

So, what is this song really all about?  When you read the lyrics, the intent of the song becomes plain.[iii]  It’s a game.  They’re teasing and having fun, that’s the point of the song.  When she (or he) says, “What’s in this drink?” She’s using a phrase that was “pretty common to movies of the era, and was primarily used by characters looking to excuse their own behaviour.”[iv] There’s no inference here that a man is drugging a woman to rape her.  In fact, the woman actually wants to stay but is concerned about what others (her parents, the neighbours, her brother, sister or maiden aunt) would say about her if she did.  This much more accurately reflects the attitudes of the 1940s and the intent of the song.

If radio stations want to look for some songs to ban, how about banning The Rolling Stones’ Brown Sugar song for example?  The song is about a slave trader who enjoys raping African slaves.  And just a cursory look at the current charts is enough to curl your hair.  Almost half of the Australian Top 50 songs are marked, “explicit.”  In the USA three-quarters of the songs in the Top 50 are explicit.  These songs are full of sexual exploits and overtones, drug use and abuse, demeaning language towards women who are often portrayed as sexual conquests, and the foulest language.  Many of the current songs make Baby, It’s Cold Outside look tame and harmless by comparison.  So, why don’t we hear more protests about contemporary songs?  Why pick on a song written almost three-quarters of a century ago?

Sensitive or Desensitised?

Glenn Anderson, a host at the Star 102 station, blogged that although the song was written in a different era, the lyrics felt “manipulative and wrong”.  “The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place.”

The world we live in is extra sensitive now?  Really? Are you sure we’re not becoming desensitised?

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby,_It%27s_Cold_Outside

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtoW4aV-CIc

[iii]https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=baby+it%27s+cold+outside+lyrics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[iv] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/is-baby-its-cold-outside-an-ode-to-rape-that-deserves-its-sudden-banishment-from-canadian-radio

 

A couple of weeks ago, Melbourne was shocked over an attack by Hassan Khalif Shire Ali during what has become known as the Bourke Street terror attack.  While the police tried to detain Ali, a homeless man, Michael Rogers, rammed a shopping trolley into him in a bid to bring him down.  Rogers became a hero now known as the “Trolley Man,” and a GoFundMe page was started that raised $145,000 in less than two weeks.

Generosity at a Cost

While on one hand, this fund-raising initiative is inspiring, on the other it is concerning.  It’s easy to generate generosity by touching the emotions.  Michael Rogers is a homeless hero, who wouldn’t want to support him?  So, let’s give money.  It turns out that the police would rather that Rogers hadn’t got involved as he could have made a bad situation worse.  Also, Rogers already has a Housing Commission flat, which he chooses not to live in.  On top of that, “He has a long criminal record including five years in prison for aggravated burglary. He is a drug user… what they’ve done now is start up this GoFundMe page … to use as he chooses.”  [1]

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against helping Michael Rogers, or any other person who is homeless, from a criminal background, a drug addict, a person living with a mental illness, or any combination of these challenges.  What I am saying is we need to be wise in what we give to and not to be simply led by our emotions.

So rife is the conning of well-meaning people that there is now a website called gofraudme which details dozens of frauds on GoFundMe as well as how to recognise and report a scam.

Consider the recent appeals for drought-affected farmers in Australia as an example of unwise giving.  Some well-meaning people were helping individual families, but that was creating resentment amongst the families that weren’t being helped.  Some organisations were trucking food into farming towns, but that was affecting local businesses because people were buying less from them.  And so, in their generosity people were creating additional problems and distress in those who were already suffering.

Be Wise & Generous Hearted

Jesus taught his followers to “be as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves.” [2]  Shrewd = wise, sharp, smart, perceptive.  I believe God wants people to be generous but, in our generosity, we shouldn’t be gullible.  When presented with a “need” spend time checking it out. Ask questions, do your research, and make sure you give sensibly rather than emotionally, with knowledge and understanding of the bigger picture. And wherever possible work through people you know or through reputable charities and churches.

 

[1] https://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/leon-byner/The-Massive-GoFundMe-For-Melbourne-s-Trolley-Man-Might-Not-Be-A-Great-Idea-Says-Peter-Ford

[2] Matthew 10:16

 

When Christie and I were filming an episode of Bayside TV, one of the most incongruous things we experienced was our pacifist guest getting angry!  We asked questions that challenged his view and, well, things got a little heated to say the least.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those warmongering fundamentalist Christians who appears to delight in bombs going off in faraway places. Such people are a living contradiction, saying they are “pro-life” and yet delighting in their guns, weapons and death penalties. But neither am I an antiwar peace lover.

A Bible verse that is invariably quoted to support pacifism is Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”  This is the only time the word peacemaker appears in the Bible, and it should be noted the word is peace maker, not peace lover.

In a modern context, we think of this Beatitude as meaning an end to war or violence. Peace lovers often want peace at any cost – or no cost at all. Peace lovers fall into two categories – the pacifists and the peaceful.  The peaceful are people who want peace at any price even if it is to their detriment or the ultimate disadvantage of others. The pacifist, on the other hand, is a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable in any circumstance.

Pacifists emphasize the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount – turn the other cheek and love your enemies.  They use the example of Jesus in his betrayal, arrest, torture, and crucifixion when he didn’t resist, and that he even prayed for those who nailed him to the cross.  The pacifist’s conclusion is that Jesus has called us to live a life of non-resistance and non-violence, but they ignore verses like Luke 22:36, “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”  The truth is, peace is not always an option. Consider Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”  Sometimes, it doesn’t depend on you!

In my opinion, the Bible does not teach pacifism; in fact, it gives three times when it’s right to fight:

To Preserve Freedom

Many times, in the Hebrew Scriptures, God told the Israelites to go and liberate a particular group of people.  In Numbers 32, God expresses anger at two tribes in Israel because they wouldn’t go to war.  Moses says to these two tribes, “What are you going to do?  Just sit here while the rest of your brothers go to war?  Aren’t you going to participate?” (Num 32:6).  If you don’t know what’s worth dying for, you won’t know what’s worth living for!

To Defend Innocent People

The Wisdom literature states, “When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”[i] Christians are not just interested in peace – we want peace with justice.  Peace at any price is not peace at all.  Peace at any price is appeasement.  God is not only a God of peace, He is also a God of justice.

Edmund Burke, the Irish political Philosopher famously said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  British Philosopher, John Stuart Mills wrote, “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free.”

To Stop The Spread of Evil

Paul the apostle believed that God had empowered governments to enforce the law and punish offenders.[ii] While the context is primarily speaking about civil matters, there is little doubt that governments also have the authority to act in order to stop the spread of evil regimes and the plans of tyrannical leaders.  What if the world had not responded strongly against Hitler’s plans for world domination or, as in more recent times, to seek to stamp out so-called Islamic State?

Someone may ask: “Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, `You shall not kill?”  No, it doesn’t.  It says, “You shall not murder.”  The word is used 47 times in the Bible, and it always means murder.  Is there a difference between killing and murder?  Absolutely!  C.S. Lewis said, “All killing is no more murder than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”  There is a difference.  When is it right?  When its goal is to bring about justice, preserve freedom, and reduce evil in the world.

God’s Ultimate Desire Is For Universal Peace

War is not God’s ideal, but we live in a far from ideal world.  His eternal kingdom will only be inhabited by righteous people, and so then there will be no need for war: “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.  They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” [iii]  This verse is written on a wall across the street from the United Nations building in New York City, but they left out a significant part – “He … will settle the disputes for many peoples.”  He – Jesus, not the United Nations.  We’ll never have ultimate peace until the Prince of Peace establishes His reign on Earth.  In the meantime, Christians should pray, work, and fight for peace.

[i] Proverbs 21:15

[ii] Romans 13:4

[iii] Isaiah 2:4

Earlier this year, I received one of the most tragic phone calls I’ve ever taken.  One of our Bayside Church leaders told me that a guy, who’d been part of our church for over a decade, had died by suicide.  I dropped everything and raced over to the house.  By the time I arrived, detectives and the police were in attendance, confirming that the worst had happened and this precious guy had ended his life.

Over the next hours and days, I spent time letting his wife and family, and then his closest friends, know what had happened.  To see the utter devastation in so many people was heartbreaking.  At times like these, there are so many questions that cannot be answered.  At his funeral, I did my best to comfort, encourage, and give hope to his family and friends.

The sorrow I witnessed at the start of the year is encountered several times every day all around Australia, and thousands of times daily in every country of the world.[i]

 “Countries large and small, advanced and developing, all experience the pain of suicide firsthand.” [ii]  In all but one of these countries (Lesotho), men are more likely to suicide than women (75% of suicides in Australia are men).

Suicide Rates

Last month, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its Causes of Death report, highlighting that Australians are taking their lives at an unacceptable rate with suicides increasing.  Suicide is the leading cause of death amongst 15 to 44-year-old’s, and the third highest cause of death amongst those from 45 and 64.

SANE Australia CEO, Jack Heath says, “Suicide rates are heading in the wrong direction and we need to change this.  We also know that the risk of suicide is higher for those living with complex mental illness and we still have a long way to go in reducing the stigma associated with complex mental illness and in facilitating access to adequate evidence-based care and support.  It is now more important than ever to support people and help them understand that the world is better off with them.”

Starting with Mental Health

One in two Australian men will have had a mental health issue at some time in their lives.  According to the Movember website, “Most of us say we’d be there for our mates if they need us.”  But sadly, “Most of us also say that we feel uncomfortable asking mates for help.”

Now more than ever there are a great number of resources available to help us deal with mental health concerns.  Websites like Conversations Matter offer lots of ideas for discussing suicide, and Beyond Blue have an entire page dedicated to getting help and ‘having the conversation.’  Heads Up Guys offer health strategies to help men manage and prevent depression, and Head to Health is an Australian Government initiative that enables you to access many mental health services and resources.

With regards to my friend who died earlier this year, none of us (his friends and family) were aware of how bad things were for him or that taking his life was on his mind.  We are all devastated by his loss.  Rarely a day goes by when I don’t think of him.

Finding Support After Suicide

One of the most helpful things at this time was a visit by a lady from Jesuit Social Services (JSS) who offer a program Support After Suicide.  She spent a couple of hours with me, Christie and our pastors at Bayside Church.  JSS offers some excellent resources on their website that will help you if someone close to you has taken their life.

Getting Active

Men’s mental health and suicide is something that touches (or will touch) us all.  Early intervention is a key strategy in mental health recovery.  I encourage you to start and continue those difficult conversations with loved ones, stay connected to your community and seek help if you recognise some warning signs in yourself or another.

RU OK also provides information on how to approach someone you may be concerned about.

If you’d like to do something practical, join me in November as I #bringbackthemo.  Create a profile on www.au.movember.com, grow a Mo and encourage people to donate to the cause of men’s mental health.  If you’d like to sponsor me, please click here.

Also, if you live in Melbourne, I invite you to join us at Bayside Church for a Men’s Mental Health Night on either the 8th or 13th November.  You’ll hear men talk about what it takes to develop a community of support, as well as GP’s about best practice treatments and their role in supporting men. It’s a free event, and everyone is welcome.

Further Help

SANE Help Centre on 1800 187 263 or helpline@sane.org from 10am-10pm AEST

Lifeline – 13 11 14

Suicide Call Back Line – 1800 659 467

MensLine – 1300 789 978

Beyond Blue – 1300 22 4636

Kids Helpline (5 to 25 years old) – 1800 551 800

Headspace (12 to 25 years old) – headspace.org.au

 

[i] About 3,000 people a day commit suicide, that’s one every 40 seconds. For each individual who takes his/her own life, at least 20 attempts to do so.  Approximately one million people commit suicide every year worldwide.

[ii] https://www.mentalhelp.net/aware/suicide-rates-interactive/

 

Can you disagree and remain friends?  It’s a question I’m regularly asked especially when the debate gets a little heated on social media.  My answer to the question is, “Well, yes & no” because it depends on several variables.

It depends on the importance of what you disagree about.  For example, I have a shirt that I refer to as “my pink shirt”, but Christie assures me it’s salmon.  Now to me salmon is a fish, not a colour but does it really matter?  Of course not.  Some things we can disagree on because they really don’t matter.

Some people can’t handle disagreement, and they take it personally especially if it’s a hot topic linked to their values, worldview, or theological position!  Others either argue or withdraw.  Those who quarrel sometimes find it hard to allow others to hold a point of view that is different to their own.  They debate to convince the other person that they need to change their opinion.  When this doesn’t happen, the argumentative person can become angry, frustrated or withdraw.  Remaining friends with people like that is difficult.  That’s why the Bible teaches, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

Friends?

It also depends on how you define the word “friends”.  For example, at the time of writing, I have 4857 Facebook friends (plus 4381 followers on my public figure page).  Add to that the number of people who connect with me on Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and I’d need to hire out the Melbourne Convention Centre and have a couple of sittings to fit everyone in.  But are these people really friends? I don’t know, I haven’t met most of them. 

I’m happy for these “friends” to comment and disagree, but what about when they’re continually disagreeable?  Interestingly, one of the synonyms for “disagreeable” is “unfriendly”.   I try and be patient and kind towards these people by first sending them a private message asking them to run their comments through the fruit of the Holy Spirit  (you know, things like kindness, self-control, and gentleness).  If they persist with their unpleasant behaviour, I warn them publicly.  After that, if they continue to offend, they are blocked or removed.  I refuse to allow such people the privilege of using my platform to air their nastiness.  The fact is you probably can’t remain friends with some friends who are not really friends at all.

Disagreeable Friends?

Can you disagree and remain friends?  Yes, most of the time if you disagree clearly.  State your opinion but don’t force it on others. Don’t see your goal in life as converting other people to your way of thinking. Allow others the freedom of seeing things differently to you.

Christian unity is not the same as uniformity. The Bible uses the word “harmony” to express the proper functioning of a church community.  Harmony occurs when different notes sound pleasing when they are played simultaneously.  Playing the same note over and over is boring.  Christians need to be in unity about the truths around salvation (as summarised in The Apostles’ Creed), but then they should be able to disagree about other things without breaking a friendship.  We shouldn’t have to be in total agreement on every issue to maintain harmony.

Hot Potatoes

Christians have differed about lots of things over the centuries, and nothing has changed.  We still disagree about theological and ethical issues as well as church practice:

  • Is baptism by full immersion or sprinkling?
  • Should women be allowed to teach in the church?
  • Was the earth created in six literal days?
  • Is hell really eternal torture?
  • Is the Bible the inerrant word of God?
  • Is it alright for divorced people to remarry?
  • Is it okay for two people of the same gender to marry?
  • Does the book of Revelation deal with the past or the future?
  • Which political party should I vote for?
  • What is the correct day to worship on?
  • Should we use grape juice or wine for communion?
  • Should Christians eat deviled eggs?

You get the picture! Christians disagree about lots of things, but none of the above effect a person’s salvation so why can’t we hold opposing views and remain friends?

It’s sad that, before I publish a blog or comment on social media these days I have to ask myself the question, am I prepared to lose friends over this?  Why can’t we respectfully disagree without breaking a friendship?   In fact, if you never have a conflict, you’re probably not experiencing genuine community, and your “peaceful” life could just be a sign that your existence has become stagnant.

Do Unto Others

Learn to disagree kindly and to differ without being unpleasant.  Avoid hurtful or personal comments and shun putting others down to lift yourself up.

Can you disagree and remain friends?  Well, yes and no. But if you want to stay friends, and the friendship is genuine, then the friendship is more important than disagreement.

(Take some time this week to read Romans 14 and notice all the helpful points the apostle Paul makes in helping the church work through disagreements).

 

Image Credits

Feature image – Even best friends have disagreements from time to time – Mark Binzegger

Serena Williams’ upset at the U.S. Open women’s final on the weekend has gained much attention in the news, as has the Herald Sun’s Mark Knight’s cartoon of the event.  Knight has felt the force of outrage against him, many seeing his cartoon as racist.  He has even received death threats which are unacceptable and has disabled his Twitter account.

 

Consider Empathy

I don’t believe Mark Knight intended his cartoon to be racist, but I do think this situation highlights a vital matter we all need to be aware of, that is, empathy: “The ability to understand and share the feelings of another;”[1] to put oneself in another person’s shoes.  Much of the commentary I’ve heard and read is from people who say that those who are accusing Mark Knight of being racist are being ridiculous.  It’s no surprise that the majority of these people are white men who have probably never experienced what it’s like to be on the receiving end of racism.

Now I realise that cartoons are expected to be edgy, satirical and pointed, but making fun of oppressed people is not satire, it’s bullying.  Satire is designed to take concepts to the extreme to show how silly they are.  If Mark Knight didn’t mean to be racist or offensive towards Serena Williams, then a simple apology would be appropriate.

Certain people are already jumping up and down about threats to freedom of speech, but there is no threat here. Mark Knight was utterly free to publish his cartoon and others are just as free to protest.  It seems we only want freedom of speech when people say what we agree with, but I’ll save that topic for another blog.

The point here is that we all need to be aware of what others face, or have suffered, in life.  We need greater empathy (understanding, compassion, identification) for one another.  What we saw from Serena Williams on the weekend was not a “hissy fit” or “dummy spit”, it was the boiling over of years of frustration from being subjected to bigoted abuse throughout her career – things that white male tennis players don’t experience.[2]

Empathy Questions

Empathy causes us to ask the questions, what is it like to be you?  What is it like to see the world through your eyes?  The only way we can know the answer to this is to ask, to talk with people of different races, genders and sexual orientations, rather than to make ill-informed judgments through the lens of our own experience.

I heard a classic example of this last week on Melbourne’s 3AW.  The Royal Adelaide Show removed three award-winning golliwog dolls from a display of handicrafts following a racism outcry on social media.  Tom Elliott interviewed Michelle Hocking, the director of the Royal Adelaide Show, and then took some calls from listeners.  It was interesting to hear the number of people who could see nothing wrong with golliwogs and thought the whole thing was a ridiculous display of outrage.  Tom Elliott naturally agreed – he’s a 50-year-old white man.  However, what if we look at this through empathetic eyes?

Golliwogs are historically associated with blackface — a performance tradition in which white performers would wear dark makeup and crudely stereotype black people.  The golliwog also inspired the racial slur “wog,” which in Britain is a derogatory term for dark-skinned people. [3] African-British writer Hannah Pool said, “unless you have been spat at, kicked or had eggs thrown at you, all while being called that hateful term, it is unlikely you will ever understand why a small doll causes such a big fuss.”[4]  Empathy.

I was talking about this with a dear friend recently.  He is of Indian descent and was adopted by a white Australian family when he was a baby.  He’s more Aussie than I am but his skin is dark brown whereas mine is white.  He told me of the horrendous bullying and racist slurs he’s been subjected to all of his life. He’s been called a golliwog and sworn at many times.  Even when he married his wife, a white woman, he was at the brunt of awful statements even by Christians.  A man in their Baptist Church asked why he was marrying a white woman: “Aren’t there enough of your type over there that you wouldn’t have to come here and marry one of ours?”

When he was 12, he was doing some voluntary work at the World Vision stall at the Easter show, signing people up for the 40-Hour Famine.  A middle-aged white woman told him, “All black people should be dead.  If they can’t look after themselves, we should just bomb them all.”  Fancy saying that to a young boy!  As a white guy, I’ve never been at the brunt of this sort of comment.  Sure, I’ve had pommy jokes told in my presence, but I have never been scorned or ostracised for being British.  I don’t have a history of racial abuse that has left me scarred and vulnerable.  The same goes for my Irish wife who tells lots of hilarious Irish jokes.

Empathy Considers Context

Another factor to consider is location.  For example, telling a joke about a Protestant and a Catholic may fly under the radar in Australia because we haven’t gone to war over this, but in Northern Ireland, it’s a different matter.  Empathy will consider location, as well as cultural and social factors, and be sensitive and caring towards those who are in other places and from different backgrounds.  Wisdom cultures (like Bible cultures and our own indigenous Australians) believe that every part of the land has its memory and history, which is why it is hurtful when we tell jokes or make light of what unfortunate events have taken place on their land.

Empathy will ask what it’s like to be in the shoes of another.  What’s it like to be a woman commuting home on her own after dark?  What’s it like to be a Muslim woman identified by wearing a hijab or burqa?  What’s it like to be same-sex attracted in a straight-dominated world?  What’s it like to have a skin colour other than white?

Let’s be slower to condemn people like Serena Williams and spend some time trying to see life through their eyes.

 

[1] www.dictionary.com

[2] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/45468290

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/06/bbc-race-golliwog

[4] https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/why-golliwogs-are-viewed-as-racist-in-australia/news-story/9b0d8f1aacb2d3004b0a85b6bb26ada6

 

One of the biggest news items in the past week has been the deportation of Schapelle Corby back to Australia from Bali. Once again her name has polarised Australians.  Some people, like me, believe in her innocence and are thrilled that’s she’s now back on Australian soil.  Others think she’s guilty and are not so happy.   Maybe there’s a third category of people who just don’t care either way.

The arguments and discussions over Schapelle Corby are reminiscent of the details surrounding Lindy Chamberlain in the 1970s. Did she do it or did she not? Of course Lindy was found guilty of murder and her husband of helping her conceal the crime. She received a life sentence with no parole; he received a three-year suspended sentence. As we now know, there was a huge miscarriage of justice.  Lindy Chamberlain served three years in jail until new evidence came to light and authorities realised they had been wrong (what if we had the death penalty back then?). The Chamberlains, exonerated by the royal commission in 1987, were pardoned and compensated.

I wonder if, in the years to come, we might learn that a similar miscarriage of justice has taken place regarding Schapelle Corby?  Remember, Schapelle checked in her bag at Brisbane airport and neither she, nor her travelling companions, had any contact with it until after they arrived in Bali.  Schapelle’s travelling companions’ luggage and Schapelle’s own luggage was never searched.  There was no investigation into where or how Schapelle intended to sell the marijuana.  The marijuana was never analysed and later it was destroyed, obliterating any chance it could be used to acquit her. There was no DNA or fingerprint analysis conducted.

To suggest that Schapelle got a strong smelling, pillow-case-sized bag of drugs through both Brisbane and Sydney airports undetected, bypass check-in staff, x-ray machines, scanners, sniffer dogs, police, customs and baggage handlers is very hard to believe.  Over the years since Schapelle’s conviction there have been numerous reports of corruption amongst customs officials and baggage handlers at Sydney airport.

The other question that’s always concerned me is why would anyone take marijuana from Australia to Indonesia anyway?  It doesn’t make any sense.  The dope that was found in Schapelle’s boogie board (4.2kg) was worth around $25,000 in Australia but only $700 in Bali.

So where does this leave all the arguments and discussions?  For those who think she’s guilty, that Schapelle has “done the crime,” then realise that she has also “done the time.”  Serving nine years in “W” Block at Bali’s Kerobokan prison is enough time for the crime.  That’s what the Indonesian authorities believed and that’s why they released her on parole in February 2014.

But if Schapelle is innocent then a great injustice has been committed, just like it was to the Chamberlains.  My hope is that one day the truth will come to light and that Schapelle will be duly compensated for her loss – not that anyone can replace the nine years of her life she spent behind bars plus a further three years in Bali when no doubt she would have preferred to have been home in Australia.  In the meantime let’s leave Schapelle alone to spend time with her family and friends and to learn to live once again in freedom.

Last week, on the morning of the US Elections, I put the following status on my Facebook page: “Well, after almost two years of Primaries and the race for the White House, Election Day has finally arrived for the US. There’s a part of me that would like to see what would happen if Trump got in. Maybe he is the bulldozer America needs right now to get the country back on track. Or maybe he’d be a total disaster that would see a decrease in the scary extreme right wing groups (with all their conspiracy theories) in the US. If he doesn’t get in, these groups will increase and the next candidate could make Donald Trump look like Prince Charming.”

As we know, Donald Trump is now President Elect and will be sworn into office as President of the United States at midday on Friday January 20, 2017. So the “part of me that would like to see what would happen if Trump got in” won’t have to wait long to find out. In the meantime there are protests (and some riots) happening in the US by people who don’t want to find out. I don’t doubt that Trump supporters would be protesting (rioting) if Hillary Clinton won. After all, the polls were rigged and Trump was possibly going to challenge the result if he lost.

There is no doubt that the USA has major problems. The country is in massive debt and it’s the divided, not the united, States when it comes to race – reaping what it’s sown from years of African slavery and oppression. Trump made some pretty concerning statements in the lead up to the election, but it is possible that he was just playing a part in order to gain votes. Even in the last week he seems to have toned down some of his threats. He’ll need to continue along this line to bring his policies more in line with the GOP and to get his policies through Congress.

According to the American Action Forum, if Trump fully enforced current immigration law, as he has suggested, it would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion, shrink the labour force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months). It will ultimately harm the US economy, and of course, the economies of many other countries as well.

His talk on trade, health care, defense and taxation will also need to be carefully examined as to their ultimate effect on the nation and the world.

But maybe he is the right man for the job at this time. He’s promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington of the politicians and lobbyists who he railed against throughout the race. Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway said, “The gravy train is about to have its wheels blown off and its engine completely ripped from its bearings because there is just no reason to keep this consultant-lobbyist axis at such a level where people feel like their interests are not being served … Part of the rigged, corrupt system that he was giving voice to so often was the one we heard from voters.” Only time will tell if Trump actually does what he’s promised to do to “Make America Great Again” or maybe he’ll be a total disaster (ref: Conway Trump Swamp).

Of course making America great means different things to different people – and it should certainly mean something different to Christian people. Jesus defined greatness as serving others rather than reflecting the world’s self-interest and ladder climbing (Matthew 20:20-28). One of the saddest things I’ve observed during this election campaign is so much of the US Evangelical & Pentecostal church publicly taking sides with Donald Trump. Three things need to be clarified here:

Firstly, the church must be neutral when it comes to political parties. The church must not align itself with a particular party because the church’s FIRST priority is being obedient to Jesus’ LAST words (Matthew 28:18-20). For pastors to align their churches with one party over another means that the effectiveness of that pastor and church will be decreased in reaching people of other political persuasions. Read the book Unchristian by David Kinnaman for some excellent research on why and how politically aligned churches hinder the Gospel.

Secondly, the church must be consistent. For example, it’s one thing to talk about the President of the United States as God’s appointment because “there is no authority except that which God has established.” But why then did so many US church leaders endorse the war against Iraq? If “there is no authority except that which God has established” did that not include Saddam Hussein? What of the resulting mess from the unilateral offensive against Iraq? Why is there such hypocrisy in the US intervening in some situations and yet not in others (Rwanda, Bosnia, Ukraine and Sudan for example). Where is the church’s outcry against this hypocrisy and lack of justice?

Thirdly, the church must be involved in, and speak out about, issues of ethics and justice – the most important one being the relief of poverty (see Galatians 2:9-10). The church must shine it’s light bright so that people “may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Instead America sees the church in bed with the GOP and Donald Trump and simply can’t reconcile the Christian faith with the racism, misogyny, torture, violence, insults, hypocrisy and lewdness they hear from him.

This is where the contradictions come in. There are some church leaders in the US who have suggested that Donald Trump is like the Persian King Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-4). God anointed a pagan king to encourage the Jewish people to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple, also helping to finance the venture. But God did not call King Cyrus to rule over Israel, which is what these church leaders are “prophesying” about Donald Trump. And in any case, these same leaders also say that Trump is now a born again Christian (so is he a pagan king like Cyrus or a believer in Jesus?). I am not judging Donald Trump or his faith but you can’t have it both ways.

There has been so much Scripture twisting by church leaders who distort the Word of God for their own political agenda (2 Cor. 4:2). Consider the several self-styled “prophets” who suggested that, because it’s the 70th Year of Jubilee (which it isn’t) – the year the “trump” will sound and the year Donald Trump turns 70 – that it stands to reason that Trump is God’s choice to lead America. Others have suggested that Trump is God’s choice because he will hold back the Antichrist and the New World Order. This sort of doctrine, espoused by many in the evangelical and Pentecostal church world, is based on a relatively new understanding of end time events that was made popular by John Nelson Darby, founder of the Exclusive Brethren Cult. The fact is the Antichrist came and went in the first century AD and right now we’re not waiting for the devil’s kingdom – or the great tribulation – we’re waiting for the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ.

I hope and pray that Donald Trump does a good job for the next four or eight years as President of the United States. Whether you like him or not, we all have a God-given duty to pray for him and “all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:2; Romans 13:1-7). I also pray that my colleagues in the American church get a revelation of their priority of leading their churches to reach out with good works and good news to a world that God loves and for whom Jesus died, in order to build a kingdom that is not of this world!

A couple of weeks ago I posted a blog titled Jesus on Divorce. My comments were based on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 in response to questions about divorce and remarriage.

The disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ teaching on divorce was to emphasise singleness as a better option than marriage – and Jesus didn’t disagree, and neither did the apostle Paul – both single men (Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2)

Then in Matthew 19:11-12 (NIV), Jesus makes a very interesting comment: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Three types of Eunuchs

I believe this is the only time Jesus taught on sexual diversity and his comments are still as relevant today as they ever were.

Those who “choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” refers to those who, by their own free choice, and for the glory of God’s Kingdom, abstain from marrying or any intimate relationship. They voluntarily remain single and celibate and commit their lives to serving God and His people. We need to honour people such people rather than treat them like second-class Christians because they’re unmarried.

“Eunuchs who were born that way, and…eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others” refers to those who are unable to function sexually within a heterosexual marriage.

People like that may choose not to marry at all or, if they’re already married, there needs to be honest and open communication between husband and wife about making a choice to keep the marriage together because of the many other positive things that their relationship can bring.

Examples of people Jesus may have been referring to could be those with a certain disability, impotence, people who have same-sex orientation or have had surgery that has rendered them incapable of sexual intercourse.  It also includes those who are intersex – “a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the typical definitions of female or male.”  Intersex people, just like Jesus said, are “born that way.”

Eunuchs Excluded

The interesting thing is that in Jesus’ day all of these people were excluded from temple worship, according to the Law of Moses. Consider Deuteronomy 23:1, “No eunuch is to enter the congregation of God.” The next verse bans illegitimate children from “the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”  These precious people were excluded.

But then comes a wonderful promise of a time when things would change.  Isaiah prophesies this in 56:3-5, “Don’t let foreigners who commit themselves to the Lord say,  ‘The Lord will never let me be part of his people.’  And don’t let the eunuchs say, ‘I’m a dried-up tree with no children and no future.’  For this is what the Lord says:  I will bless those eunuchs who keep my Sabbath days holy and who choose to do what pleases me and commit their lives to me.  I will give them—within the walls of my house—a memorial and a name far greater than sons and daughters could give.  For the name I give them is an everlasting one.  It will never disappear!”

In the New Testament we see the fulfillment of this prophecy in the story of the conversion of Eunuch who was an Ethiopian court official.  He’d been to Jerusalem to worship God but of course he would have been disappointed by not being admitted to the Temple.  The apostle Philip was led by the Holy Spirit away from a revival in Samaria to the Gaza desert in order to bring salvation to this one man – the Ethiopian Eunuch.  Read the story in Acts 8:27-39.  It’s so inspiring.

Sadly, the modern church is still guilty of excluding those who are “different.”  Those who are single or who don’t fit the heterosexual stereotype are often made to feel second-class, unwanted and unwelcome.  Not only does this rob these precious people of the genuine Christian community they long for, it also robs the church of the gifts, compassion and energy these people can bring to the community of faith.

A Wonderful Example

A dear friend of ours, Ps Lynette Tobin, is a wonderful example of real Christianity in the work she’s been doing amongst the Eunuchs in India for several years.  In Western countries they are referred to as Transgender.  I’ll conclude this blog with a description of this work from Lynette:

“We met the Eunuchs 5 years ago through an amazing woman who was teaching them about the love of God. The leader of the Eunuchs in that group was Phoebe, who has since died of cancer.  She was such an inspiration.

Phoebe was born as a Eunuch and the day he was born the Eunuchs seemed to know, and came and took him off his family and brought him up in their community.  Many are born like that – man and woman – and they are castrated with a rock.  Families throw eunuch children out usually around 13 or 14 because they are different, and they are then castrated. Others choose to be castrated themselves just like the scriptures say.

The Eunuchs in India are the lowest of the low and, up until last year, they were not registered as a citizen of India so then could not get work or health cover. They live by begging and live in the most humble places and have nothing much at all. Phoebe died because she could not get health treatment. Praise God they are now recognised as human beings. Last year the law was passed in India that they could be registered and recognised.  Eunuchs are quite feared and hated in India but it is changing. Many are coming to the Lord because of God’s amazing grace seeking them out, and there are many Eunuchs who are spreading the Word of God.

Phoebe was recognised as a pastor and she brought many to the Lord.  They look quite manly but have hearts of gold, and these ones loved the Lord with all their hearts.

Phoebe was in a Hindu Temple giving alms to the Hindu gods when Jesus came to her in a vision and told her He had a future for her and that she was precious in His sight (She knew nothing of Jesus). She gave her heart to Jesus and started winning many other Eunuchs to the Lord.  What an honour to meet these amazing human beings.  Love Lynette.”

And so, if Jesus is seeking eunuchs out today, revealing his love to them and drawing them into relationship with God, what is our excuse to exclude such people from our churches?  Remember God’s Word, “I will give them—within the walls of my house—a memorial and a name far greater than sons and daughters could give.  For the name I give them is an everlasting one.  It will never disappear!”

In last week’s blog I mentioned a book I read while on holiday recently: One of Us by journalist Asne Seierstad. In it the author brilliantly presents the story of Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 people (and wounded many more) in the bomb attack and mass shooting in Norway on 22 July 2011. Breivik was a far-right “Christian” who committed these atrocities because he was concerned that Norway was losing its Christian values due to the policies of the left. That’s why he targeted the seat of Norway’s Government as well as a camp for up and coming leftist leaders.

When I mentioned this last week someone very quickly corrected me by telling me that Breivik is not a Christian, but he called himself one and acted out of his view of Christian values. Consider some of his beliefs …

• He advocated for the deportation of all Muslims unless they converted to Christianity, were baptised and given new Christian names.

• He prayed to God. On one occasion he wrote in his diary, “I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed in my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservative nationalist, anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world.”

• He encouraged the Church to be more forthright, priests to be more like in the old days and the reintroduction of teaching Christianity in schools.

• He viewed the execution of 77 people as a way of preventing the loss of “our ethnic group, our Christianity, our culture.”

• He described himself as “a militant Christian and not particularly religious.” He said, “We want a Christian cultural heritage, Christian religious instruction in schools and a Christian framework for Europe.” He claimed, “I’m a Christian, I believe in God.”

Breivik called himself a Christian, and yet any reasonable person would realise that just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn’t mean he is one. We expect a person’s Christian faith to reflect in a certain way in their life and that certainly doesn’t include the murder of 77 people.

Consider the following words, “In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.” It’s an excellent proclamation that no Christian would disagree with. But these words were part of a speech given by Adolf Hitler in 1937. History is littered with examples like this. Consider the Catholics and Protestants who were blowing each other up in the Northern Irish Troubles or Joseph Kony (a radical Christianist and leader of The Lord’s Resistance Army) who called for the establishment of a severe Christian fundamentalist government in Uganda and other parts of Africa.

Just because someone carries the title “Christian” doesn’t mean they are one – anymore than someone who calls himself or herself a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu but don’t live according to the tenets of their faith especially the Golden Rule.

I have a number of Muslim friends and they often tell me how embarrassed they are over the actions of Islamist terrorists. “Please don’t think we’re all like that,” they say to me. “They are not real Muslims and they don’t represent our faith.” My friends are peace-loving people who reflect many of the values of my own faith – they love their family and friends, they help those in need and they love their God.

Being a Christian is not just about wearing a badge or bearing a title. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands” and He’d already taught His followers what those commands were – the love commandments: love the Lord your God, love one another, love your neighbour and love your enemy. The apostle Paul summarised it this way: “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” A true Christian will live a life that does “no harm to a neighbor.” Anders Breivik did not live that way!

 

The New Testament Gospels don’t record everything Jesus did or said. The Apostle John made that clear when he wrote, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” We know little of Jesus’ life from the time he was a toddler to when he started his ministry about the age of 30.

We know that Jesus had an education because he could both read and write, but just like the Bible only tells us once that Jesus wept, it also states only once that Jesus wrote – but what he wrote was incredibly significant.

The story is found in John chapter 8 and revolves around a woman who had been caught by some religious leaders in the very act of adultery. It was an obvious set up to trap Jesus in order to have a basis for accusing him.

These religious leaders “made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.”

Many have hypothesized about what Jesus wrote in the dirt – one suggested he was writing Sanskrit (Sand-skrit). I appreciate the attempt at humour! John doesn’t tell us what Jesus wrote because he knew his audience 2,000 years ago wouldn’t need an explanation.

Whenever someone was caught in adultery, both the man AND the woman would be brought to the Nicanor Gate and accused. This gate was the entrance to the Women’s Court of the temple. At least two witnesses must be present to confirm that adultery had indeed been committed, and then there was a certain ceremony conducted in order to bring judgment. However, in this instance the Pharisees only brought the woman, and there is no mention of any witnesses. The Teachers and Pharisees just say she was caught in the act but they don’t say by whom. Both of these things were a violation of the Law of God.

Next, the priest was required to stoop down and write the law that had been broken, along with the names of the accused, in the dust of the floor of the Temple. In fact, the priest could write the law and the names anywhere, as long as the marks were not permanent. The dust on the floor of the Temple was the most common place for this to be done. And so by doing this Jesus showed the woman’s accusers that even though THEY were not keeping the law, He would anyway.

The Scribes and Pharisees ignored the law but then continued with their accusations. And so Jesus stood up (after plainly demonstrating they were violating the law themselves) and said, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”   After saying this Jesus again stooped down and wrote on the ground. What did he write this time?

It’s important to note that this event occurs around Yom Kippur and the Feast of Tabernacles. Every year on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) the High Priest would baptise himself about 11 times in order to be ceremonially cleansed between each separate portion of the day’s sacrifices. At the end of the day there was a celebration at his home where the people would rejoice that their sins had been forgiven. To end the festivities the High Priest would quote Jeremiah 17:13, “Oh Yahweh, the Immerser (Baptizer) of Israel, all those who leave your way shall be put to shame (publicly embarrassed), those who turn aside from my ways will have their names written in the dust and blotted out, for they have departed from Yahweh, the fountain of the waters of life” (Literal Hebrew Translation).

Religious Jewish men would hear this verse quoted every year – the older they were the more times they’d heard it. Thus when Jesus wrote this verse in the dust the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees were “convicted by their own conscience” (KJV), put to shame, and departed from Jesus from the eldest to the youngest, the older having heard the verse quoted more often. It’s likely Jesus also wrote the men’s names in the dust in fulfillment of Jeremiah 17:13.

There are some stunning lessons to be learned from this story but the most mind-blowing is the wonderful insight it gives into the grace of God. Women had few if any rights in the first century world and yet Jesus treated this woman (and all women) with great dignity. This woman had broken the law and the law demanded capital punishment and yet Jesus responded with compassion and forgiveness. He believed in her – despite others rejecting her – and gave her the opportunity to be redeemed: Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Jesus wrote in the dust because what he wrote wouldn’t be permanent – it could be rubbed out. That’s what he did to this woman’s sins – that is what he has done to your sins too.

In the light of the deadly terrorist attacks on Paris a few days ago, social media has been abuzz with various commentary on what has happened and why. To my surprise someone left a comment on my Facebook page that said, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.” I was stunned by the ignorance of the statement.

You see, I spent my early years in the UK and so I vividly remember the outbreak of terrorism in Northern Ireland in 1968. “The Troubles” lasted 30 years and, even when we moved to Australia in 1971, we frequently heard of atrocities caused by both sides – Catholic and Protestant Christians. As an atheist in my teenage years I would role my eyes at the fact that Christians were blowing each other up in Northern Ireland. It did nothing to endear me to the Gospel of Jesus. It wasn’t until I was converted to Christianity in the late 70s that I began to realise that just because someone called himself or herself a Christian, a Catholic or a Protestant, it didn’t mean they really were. The Irish terrorists may have aligned themselves with the Christian faith but they weren’t Christian.

Imagine how genuine Muslims feel right now that people bearing the name of their faith are blowing people up, beheading them and shooting them all in the name of Allah. Shouting Allahu Akbar (“God is greatest”) before blowing people up is no more Muslim than a Protestant or Catholic terrorist in Northern Ireland is Christian.

Since the attack by Islamic extremists on the World Trade Centre in 2001 there has been an increase of terrorism in the name of the Islamic faith, and this has been the focus of the media that I imagine led to the comment on Facebook about all terrorists being Muslim. But consider this:

“Christian” terrorism is still alive and well. The Army of God is a network of violent Christianists that has been active since the early 1980s and openly promotes killing abortion providers. The army of God also has a history of promoting violence against gays. Then there’s Eastern Lightning (the Church of the Almighty God or the Church of the Gospel’s Kingdom). They believe that the world is coming to an end, and in the meantime, its duty is to slay as many demons as possible. They have been responsible for a number of killings and kidnappings in China.

The mainstream media has had much to say about the Islamist brutality of Boko Haram (and rightly so), but one terrorist group they haven’t paid nearly as much attention to is the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)—which was founded by Joseph Kony (a radical Christianist) in Uganda in 1987 and has called for the establishment of a severe Christian fundamentalist government in that country. The LRA, according to Human Rights Watch, has committed thousands of killings and kidnappings spreading its terrorism from Uganda to parts of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan. The LRA’s tactics are not unlike those of ISIS or Boko Haram. And the governments Kony hopes to establish in Sub-Saharan Africa would implement a Christianist equivalent of Islamic Sharia law.

There’s the National Liberation Front of Tripura – a paramilitary Christianist movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government. It has zero tolerance for any religion other than Christianity, and the group has repeatedly shown a willingness to kill, kidnap or torture Hindus who refuse to be converted to its extreme brand of Protestant fundamentalism. There are other groups like The Phineas Priesthood and The Concerned Christians that true Christians should be concerned about.

Hindu nationalist groups in India far outweigh the damage caused by Islamist terrorists. In 2014 there were 976 deaths from terrorism in India. Islamist extremism claimed four lives. In the past decade, extremist Hindus have increased their attacks on Christians, until there are now several hundred per year.

Buddhist terrorist groups are playing a leading role in the rising tide of religious extremism in their respective countries and have been active in promoting the violent ideology that has led to hundreds of deaths in Sri Lanka and genocide in the western Rakhine state of Myanmar. In Australia some of our “boat people” have been a Muslim minority from Myanmar, the Rohingya people. None of Myanmar’s ethnic minorities have escaped persecution from the country’s Burman majority government over the years – be they Christian, Animist, Muslim or Buddhist.

Right now seven of the top ten terrorist groups are Islamic extremists. We have a problem that doesn’t seem like it will go away for years if not decades. Islam has a problem too and it’s my opinion that Muslim leaders – and Muslim people in general – need to be much more vocal in decrying acts of terrorism. But while I hear a lot of Christians condemning Islamic extremism I haven’t heard anything from the church denouncing Christian terrorism when it raises its ugly head. The silence is deafening!

What we need is for all good people – regardless of their faith or absence of a faith – speaking out against injustice wherever it is and whoever perpetrates it. Let us pray for Paris, but let’s not forget the people of other cities and nations that are affected by terrorism every single day. Consider this, over 200,000 people have died in Syria in the past 4.5 years. That’s equivalent to a Paris attack EVERY DAY! Why don’t we see Facebook profile pictures depicting the Syrian flag? Are we praying for them too or are we sitting back making ignorant judgments like, “all terrorists are Muslim.”