bye bye iron mark
So Mark is gone - resigning as the federal opposition leader, resigning as a member of federal parliament. Taking his bat and ball and going home. With regards to Mark, I often disagreed with him politically but it was refreshing to have someone in the game who seemed like a real person rather than just a polished cardboard cut-out with lips that move.
The thing that is absolutely tiresome about the whole thing is that now we have to go through the whole problem of debating who will replace Latham as the opposition leader. The consensus is that it will be Bomber Beazley (again) being wheeled out to have a go at a third Federal election. Supposedly this is an expression of party unity and a healing thing. Who the hell cares? Is there anyone that seriously believes that the identity of the Federal opposition leader is going to have any real impact on Federal politics for the next 2 and a half years? They could appoint Jenny Macklin and have her sit there and say nothing at all for ever (after all she has experience doing that as deputy leader) and it wouldn’t make a difference.
Howard is just about to take a majority in the Senate, he is virtually bullet-proof in the sense that he can do whatever he damn pleases and either the media doesn’t seem interested in calling him on it or the public is not listening. He has taken the grubby machinations of party politics out from behind closed doors and exposed them to the light of day and nobody seems to care - it only makes him stronger. So frankly, given that the Labor party is about one month away from imploding from internal bickering, they could appoint Nelson Mandela and it wouldn’t make a difference (although it would be kind of cool to abandon the “generational change” thing and appoint someone even older than the man of steel).
And even more ridiculous is the evaluation of opinion polls Costello -v- Beazley. Muh-huh? Haven’t we been here already? Didn’t we note that Latham was leading in the polls before the last federal election campaign? Do we even care? The Liberal party will lose when they are overwhelmed by their own hubris and collectively eat their tongues, and not a moment before. The identity of the Federal opposition leader will only be relevant so far as an analysis of who will be more entertaining for the dwindling group of people that are actually in any way interested in following politics.
They should get a dead guy like the guy from Weekend at Bernies to do the job. He wouldn’t make any big mistakes, and it would be entertaining to watch his advisers pretending he is just dozing for a little while. That would be cool. And you could do slapstick stuff like make him fall down the steps of parliament (”Whoa, there big fella, had a bit much to drink?”) or kick him in the groin accidentally. Now that would be the sort of injection of interest that the federal labor party could really use.
January 19th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Seems that Howard recalls an earlier era of anglo politicians: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, than he does George Bush. It was Reagan, after all, who was the Teflon president.
January 19th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
If Mark Latham is suffering from a disorder of the pancreas, I reckon your spleen is overflowing….
Might I recommend you to http://www.mumble.com.au, in order to provide some cure, and a bit of sane comment on Beazley.
January 19th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
My dog Winston is interested in the position, but feels he may be overqualified
January 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Like you I found Latham different and refreshing to the grey suits about Canberra.Yep its going to be frustrating and tiresome as the boys sort out their egos.On the other hand its still kind of comforting that they still brawl over leadership.Imagine what it would be like to belong to an organisation which couldnt care less about its leadership,say like the church you and I belong to!!
Alan
January 20th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Hmm, Alan, as a member of the leadership of the church that you and I belong to, I don’t know quite how to take that….
January 21st, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Only making the point that a healthy organisation/institution is one which debates its leadership,has enough candidates for an election,provides opportunities for potential candidates running for office to put their dreams and visions etc before their constituency etc etc.Can you think of a congregation which ran an election for their “senior minister”,or a church paper which democratised its editorship;the only denomination in Australia which runs elections for their president/moderator is the UCA,the rest do deals,usually among the boys!
For whatever problems political parties have and they have a stack,there are people who believe in them,have a vision etc etc etc…….yeah I know there lots of egos which get in the way,yet…..
theres still a lot of believers out there.
How come we have such dificulty in the church in getting people to provide leadership beyond their comfort zone?
A real dilemma for the “emerging church” is its total preoccupation with the “local” and its opting out of grappling with a theology of the church beyond local empires.
alan
January 21st, 2005 at 6:12 pm
“How come we have such dificulty in the church in getting people to provide leadership beyond their comfort zone?”
In my humble opinion, it’s because the type of “christian service” promoted to many congregations is one of quietness, placidity and erring on the side of caution. Those young people who display those characteristics in a church are groomed as leadership material, those who are, by personality, more outgoing and loud and risk-taking are dicouraged, and told they need to “mature” or “settle down” before they can be given responsibility.
So dynamic individuals either lose their dynamism, or do not get asked to take steps towards leading a church/study/youth group etc.
Those who ask difficult questions tend to be sidelined by older congregations, who do not like their way of thinking and behaving to be challenged. Change can often be seen by some (not all) older people as threatening and worrisome, so young leaders are selected from amongst those who are least likely to rock any boats.
My challenge for the church would be to seek out those younger people whose attitudes and questions make the church uneasy, and groom THEM for leadership. No visionary, groundbreaking leadership will come from quiet, afraid-to-do-anything-we-haven’t-done-before types.
One of the very important parts of the success of the AOG churches in Australia in recent times (there are several) has been their willingness to promote dynamic people into prominent roles, and accept that God has gifted some people with natural leadership and flair that should be given room to move. This is of course has downsides, but the upsides are many as well.
And there aren’t too many upsides to timid leadership….if the church is dying the death of a thousand cuts, it’s because it felt the first cut, then the second, then the third, and still did nothing to move away from the knife. Timidity is death.
The ultimate question is, of course - do we have more faith in the devil to lead us astray then in the Spirit to lead us forward in God? Very often, the answer is yes.
January 22nd, 2005 at 9:24 pm
actuallu Luke.
I have a far better idea.
Read the bible and see what it says about the requirements for leaders.
those that have the requirements can br= leaders. those that don’t can do other things.
January 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 am
I think you make a good point Luke, being rebellious against the leadership doesn’t mean you aren’t leadeship material, it means there is a fire to be fostered - I want more people with fire in their hearts leading our churches…
January 24th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Well, the thing is, Homer - why do you see what you’re saying and what I’m saying as opposed to each other?
The Bible gives guidelines on people who can be leaders, particularly in the area of personal propriety and standards of behaviour. It doesn’t give any sort of personality test to measure people’s suitabilities on.
And incidentally, how would someone like King David, or Peter, have measured up against those?
January 24th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
I think 1 tim 3 and titus 1 speak for themselves.
David was a king and no as adulterer and accomplice to murder he couldn’t be a leader in the church.
Peter was in the unique position as an apostle but in rome also became an apostle.
We have to remember christians will always be in a minority even on Judgement day.
The only reason some churches have large numbers and some have low numbers is due to God.
I know of two people building the church in Senegal and the other in Kazakstan. In a population similar to Sydney in senegal they are lucky to have 50 believers.
In Kazakstan the church is thriving.
Same message but different result.
We just have to hang in there to capture the elect.
January 25th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Uh-oh.
1 Tim 3; “not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ”
Tit 3; “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is selfcondemned.”
Still waiting to see how that conflicts with dynamic people being groomed for leadership.
As for David, he was a king of Israel - that is, a leader of the people of God. What is a leader of the church? A leader of the people
of God. As for your comment on Peter “Peter was in the unique position as an apostle but in rome also became an apostle”, well, if you were trying to be obscure, you succeeded.
And finally, nice to see Calvin poking his head up here, with your reference to the “elect”. It seems your position is that it doesn’t matter how pathetic or inspired the leadership is, because we’re all pre-destined for heaven or hell anyway.
For someone continually on about preaching the truth to people, that is a truly bizarre way to think.
January 25th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
sorry I meant elder not apostle in reference to Peter.
being the King of Israel is different to being a leader of the church.
for any church leadership i would say what is the gist of both passages. It is you find some one who can talk the talk but even more importantly walk the walk.
It is important to note that only here do we get a definition of household for either bishop or deacon.
I think all bibically based leadership is inspired and dynamic. That is how we connect to the elect. It certainly doesn’t come from pathetic leadership.
January 25th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Despite my serious problems with your use of the phrase, “the elect”, I think we’ll agree to have different views on this one….or a thread pertaining to Mark Latham’s resignation (thank God, the only problem was that he got the leadership in the first place) will end up a debate on Calvinism.
But I do not accept that the only duty of a leader is to go find the pre-selected few that are already marked down for salvation, and keep them led.
January 25th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Well I got the term when I first read the bible.
It came up againwhen I read Augustine and again when I read Luther.
I do grant you that Calvin wrote much better on the topic.
A christian leader does not know the elect thus can’t find them. Evangelism is not one of the requirments. teaching theem well is though.
What do you want the leader to do and how do you define ‘dynamic’?
January 25th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
This will boil down to a debate on election…(ironic, given that we started talking about politics)….and I suspect you and I are very different in our views on that subject.
I want leaders to do several things, and of course, different situations require differing personalities and responses. But if you want a very rough breakdown of qualities that I would wish for in church leadership, here they are. (no particular order)
a) an ability to teach the church; but going beyond that, an ability and willingness to teach the church to think for itself
b) openness to the leading of the spirit
c) submission to their own leadership
d) ability to inspire and motivate people
e) ability to “think outside the square” and be responsive to changing social norms, communicative techniques and attitudes
f) competent scholarship, or at least the recipient of training within that background
g) compassion, and a heart for justice
There will no doubt be about 3948593487 other I think of after I post this, but here are a few. And some of them are lacking in many churches today.
My problem with the authors you quote (and particularly with regards to Luther, I have many many doubts as to his veracity, cogency and reliability, on this and other issues), is that they solve the problem of the existence of both free will, and the sovereignty of God, by abolishing one and making humans slaves of Jehovah. I would argue, and not be the first to do so by any stretch, that our response to God is one of free wiil, not a pre-destined action. So leaders need to be able to empower the church to evangelism in order to reach as many people as possible, so that they may be saved.
This truncated and quite possibly rambling, but you get the idea.
January 25th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Otherwise, it is too easy to write off fundamental human failings in this area and say, oh well, there couldn’t have been too many of the elect around here, that’s why no-one’s coming to our church.
Is that what you’re saying?
January 26th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Actually I see nothing in your list which aren’t in the biblical requirements.
My comments re luther were re election.
I aam not saying do nothing. Far from it. What I am saying is you can do all those things and still not have one extra person coming to church.
The number of people coming to church is detreminedby God. We can merely keep on doing our best and pray that our churches will be blessed by dare I say it, the elect.
September 16th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
I feel a strange camaraderie with Mark Latham today.
Crucified for being honest about the system, for being mad, and for being ‘emotionally fragile’.
But in the same way as Mark, I don’t care what those in the busted-ass system think.
The system IS buggered.
Fix it…(if you really claim to hold the truth, the way and the life).
September 16th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
The parallels between the church, and the Federal Labor party are uncanny.
September 16th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Lance, the situation is a sight more complex than that mate. Latham has a lot to answer for, not least of which is the deception he’s currently engaged in.
He does make some valid observations, but finding them is like searching for pearls in a bucket of pigshit. They’re there, but there’s a lot of crap to wade through to find them.
September 16th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Is this the ‘normal Luke’ or the airhead Luke?