You know what? I am willing to be convinced about the need for different rules to apply to suspected terrorists. I think that terrorism is a scary thing that we don’t really understand and which can leave us vulnerable because we frame our society in such a way that we think our values will be broadly similar (eg value of life, self-preservation etc).

I have found myself unable to roundly condemn on principle the idea that special terrorist laws are needed. For the record, on the basis of what I have seen, I suspect that David Hicks is a moron at best and a traitor at worst. I suspect that many of the people that were held in Guantanamo Bay are very nasty people who we should be secretly pleased are under surveillance and/or out of circulation.

In saying the above I have probably pissed off a bunch of people with whom I am normally politically aligned. And there are probably another bunch who say “Hey, we never said that it wasn’t a problem, but…” You see, I suspect that there are a bunch of people who fall in the latte left camp that I strongly disagree with and believe are stupid and naive. But we may never know.

Because the Howard government seems monumentally intent on failing to establish or demonstrate that the terrorist laws are being applied to people and in such a way which will actually address any of the valid concerns that many Australians might have (even if we disagree on how to handle them). I object to the whole violation of the rule of law thing on principle, but am prepared to be open to the argument that an exception ought to be made.

I just read the first ninety-odd pages of the record of interview with alleged crazed terrorist supporter Dr Haneef and think that some of his explanations warrant being checked out, but if the questions are any guide to the sort of hard evidence they have against him, then the guy is guilty of sending money to people he knows to support his family or repay loans, allowing people who are staying with him to use his internet connection and otherwise being a little too inclined to be worried that the authorities will assume he is suspicious because he knows someone who was involved in an alleged terrorist act. Clearly an unfounded suspicion.

Seriously, the PR people for the Howard government and the AFP should be making damn sure that they have enough evidence on such a high profile case to clearly show the public that these right restrictions are warranted. And they don’t. Maybe they can’t reveal it, maybe they are still gathering it, but the truth is that they have failed to back up their rhetoric on why these things are needed.

And sooner or later won’t someone realise that the people who might mentally lob all the brown-skinned muslims into the terroist box are also the ones that are famous for being after a fair go and realise that someone who is making $5K a month and sending a big chunk of it home to his family in India might actually be reluctant to waste unused credit on a pre-paid phone SIM?

So recently as a part of Tangent, the congregation that Phil and I are both members and leaders of at Northern, we have been talking about mission. Our young adults congregations seem to have an ebb and flow pattern. We increase in size and enthusiasm and then a whole bunch of people move on to different challenges - they graduate uni and get a job somewhere else, they travel overseas, they get married and move or whatever. We figure we have Tangent/Jeebus/Haven/Nexus alumni in most states of Australia now. Seeing as we never really let our congregations get to be much over 20 people before we plant again, this ebb and flow pattern means that sooner or later we find ourselves with a small group sitting in a cafe or place and contemplating what our focus will be for the next little while.

The ebb and flow thing seems like a natural flow and very organic. The various congregations and missional teams of Northern have their own flow and I think that one of the great strengths of the way that we do things is we are comfortable with life cycles, and the change in stage of a congregation doesn’t throw everyone into a blind panic. Rather it offers a sort of renewal - the chance for the smaller core group to recast the vision and take hold of the way that they want to go forward.

At the moment, as I look around our congregation members, our profile in ebb is pretty typical - there are some that have been around for years in these congregations and seem destined never to move on but who are a little weary and disheartened by generating the energy to rebuild (again). And, as is typical, there are some that are recent arrivals who have nonetheless committed themselves strongly to our congregation and in many cases are eager to experience for the first time the sort of freedom and self determination that our model permits.

Anyway, part of the puzzle for us this time around has been to find a way that we can engage with other people in some sort of mission/connection/community based project. At one time many in our congregation had other missional or leadership projects in and outside of Northern and we only did one thing per year together as a group (an open Christmas community lunch). We still do that, but now we want to look at doing something as a group more regularly. We have discussed engaging with people in a pub, community lunches and dinners, drop in centres, film discussion nights and all manner of different things.

We are still exploring what we want to do and what it might look like. How do we create a missional project for a small number of time-poor people that connects us with people different to ourselves (or people who might benefit from being connected with)?

(serious question, cause if you post any good ideas I plan to steal them).

Daryl Dash linked up this great quote a little while ago, and I am posting it here to remind myself of it for the future.

“We want ministry to be explained in terms that allow us to function as technicians, managers, or building contractors. We want a blueprint to build from and a list to check off as we accomplish each item.

I want something different.

I want the leadership of our church to be about creating an atmosphere, an environment where people can fall in love with Jesus. I don’t want technicians who can run a program. I want agents of love who will spread the life of the Spirit through the church.

This desire drives my engineers and accountants nuts! They want plans; I want an atmosphere, an environment, a community where people can live a new way. Fish can’t swim in the desert of programs. I want living water to create an ocean where beauty thrives.”

I have been giving some thought lately to the discussion on what is the “best” model for church. Some people speak passionately about their own approach or model to claim that it is the answer to the predicament of the western church. I know that I have the same temptation - if only other churches could see that the multi-congregational approach is the way to go…. goes the line.

But it is not just me. Some Church planters seem to be convinced that they can overcome all the problems associated with the western church by starting again. They rail against the instiutionalism of the western church (me too!), and say if we can get back to something more simple, something new, magically the problems we are experiencing now will disappear.

Is it just me, or is this just plain naive?

Everything has its strengths. And all new attempts at creating some brand new have one thing in common with the established church - people. The people that start the new endeavours have the same tendencies, the same temptations and carry with them in their new endeavours either the same problems, or react so much to the problems that they end up swinging the pendulum too far.

We need some wisdom injected into the conversation and our attempts to grapple with what it means to be the people of God in this new exciting and terrifying missional context.

Some people will church plant and some of these churches will be new, fresh and incredibly exciting. Some of these new plants will quickly struggle with the same people issues that led them to move away from the established church. Some will stay and hang in there with the established church - fully aware of the shortcomings and sharing the frustrations of these church planters — but, also feeling called to work with this part of the people of God.

The apostle Paul’s imagery of the body is apt here I think. We need both and all the shades of grey that go with it.

One is not a cop out and the other THE answer. One is not easy and the other hard. I have heard people gleefully quoting statistics that show that transitioning an established church is basically impossible, conveniently forgetting the incredible failure rate of church planting. I have also heard others gleefully quoting the failure of church planting, as if it means we should not do it anymore. We need to better than that!

Both are hard, painful and a huge challenge as we attempt to be in community with imperfect people grappling with the hard teachings of Jesus. And both may not “succeed” but we are called to give it a go in different places and contexts.

This is a very interesting video that picks up on some themes that are incredibly important for us today as we grapple with changing concepts of community, connectedness and the impact of the internet.

From Lifehack.com

Had a good time at Tangent on Tuesday night. Tangent is a congregation of Northern Community of largely young adults that meets 7.30m on Tuesday nights.

For some time we have become increasingly uncomfortable about our location in the pub. There was something about a private room - behind a closed door that didn’t sit well with what we wanted to be at Tangent. So, we thought it was time for a move, as well as time to do some thinking about our direction.

The wonderful thing about smaller congregations, as well as our culture at Northern Community, is that we can make decisions about our location, style, content etc. without reference to some external authority. We just do it! We give it a go. It sounds so simple doesn’t it? Yet, it is wonderfully empowering and freeing knowing whatever we decide as a group - we can do.

So, off to Westgarth to the café where we were many years ago… We had a great meal with many cries of delight about the higher standard of food over pub meals and then it was the meal of Luke 10.

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two [a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 If the head of the house loves peace, your peace will rest on that house; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for workers deserve their wages. Do not move around from house to house.

8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

We read this together and allowed the food and the text to be digested.

The two by two we moved into the Westgarth strip for time spent - popping into each cafe, restaurant and bar. Some of us hang around the lobby of the funky Westgarth independent theatre for a while. We read the notice boards in each of the cafe’s and soaked up the atmosphere of each of the spaces. Time was also spent just observing the way people were interacting - some sitting with friends, and other’s on their own.

We then gathered around at a different café for coffee and cake to share our experiences.

What did we see? How can we engage with people in Westgarth?

Answers? Well, the journey continues…

Jon Owen asks some powerful if not disturbing questions about the Aboriginal sexual abuse issue and John Howard’s new found interest in the issue.

“1) Why doesn’t Mr Howard work with the local Aboriginal leadership and get them involved in the planning of strategies to fight the problem? Why doesn’t he consult the Aboriginal elders and leaders to get them into owning the actions that must be taken? Why won’t he hear their ideas and negotiate and plan with them? When Aboriginal leaders decide on a “no alcohol” ban for their communities, it usually works a whole lot better than when the white leaders of the country decide to ban things on their behalf.

2) Why does Mr Howard, after 10 years of inactivity towards the Australian Aboriginal people, suddenly position himself as someone who cares about them? He is going to put nuclear waste material in remote Aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory, if he wins the next election. How is this caring for the Aboriginals well being, their health, their future? Is Mr Howard schizophrenic? How can he say he cares in one breath, but will damage Aboriginal communities in the very next one?

3) Why is Howard acting so massively and decisively now, just a few months before a federal election? Could he be using the Aboriginals for personal political mileage? He will look like a caring and decisive leader. Some might then conclude that we had better keep him in power at the up and coming election. But if this is so, then he is actually adding to the abuse of the Aboriginal communities, but in a different way. He is abusing the Aborigines of the Northern Territory for his own political agenda. He is using our care and sympathy, for his own political capital. The Australian Aboriginals are once more the tool of the powerful to be used for their own outcomes.

4) When Mr Howard says “what matters more, the constitutional niceties or the care and protection of young children?” does he not realise the seriousness of what he is saying? This must come back to bite him. Does he really believe that the constitution of our nation and our states and territories, does not matter if we are fighting a good cause? He would never say that in most other situations. It is not what a believer in democracy says. It is the kind of logic that says it is ok to start wars for a good cause; it is ok to leave Australian citizens in overseas jails that torture their prisoners, for a good cause. It is ok to put refugee children in jails in offshore detention centres, for a good cause. It is the ends justifying the means. And it has never been a good idea.”

Read more here

As part of my role with Forge, I get to sit with Church leaders wrestling with how to orient their Church around mission. I find it stimulating, challenging and exciting.

This year I have been spending time with the leadership team at Central Church in Wollongong. The transition stream of Forge has had the unexpected progression of having the leadership teams of two churches sign up for the forge transition stream in 2007. Usually only one leader does the program - this is problematic in that what they are learning, discovering and experiencing is then having to be translated back into their leadership team setting. It is way more powerful for leadership teams to do this thinking, and dreaming together. We are seeing this at both Central and Urban life.

In both Churches, who come from very different heritages to my own - I see the same struggles and questioning of what it means to be the people of God in community today. It seems so basic to say it, but our missional context is so different to other missional contexts of the past. It is these differences that mean the hard work of thinking/struggling/discussing what it means to be people of faith today is so critical.

I am inspired by some of the conversations and action that is occuring at Central and Urban life and can’t wait to hear and see more.

Dear Ms Cornwell Patricia Pat Author,

I am certainly not your earliest reader, but I was there from the start. I read Postmortem in the first year it was published and from then you were firmly on my list of authors for crime fiction, essential for inserting between more involved reading on my daily public transport commute. Every time a new tome was released, I would rush out to buy it (as soon as it reached the more readable small paperback format).

I don’t know what has happened. I no longer rush out to buy your novels nor even keep track of when they are coming out. I bought one two weeks ago and I have read three other books while it has been sitting in reserve on my bedside table. I finally cracked it open a couple of days ago and yet last night when I left it in the car after coming home from work, I never bothered to go out and get it. And I think I have figured out why.

My once favourite books are now a chore. Once, Dr Kay Scarpetta was a feisty medical examiner, highly competent and battling against the tide as a female in a male dominated world. She indulged in life - as a cigarette smoking, scotch drinking forensic specialist should. She was emotional and clashed with Captain Pete Marino and FBI profiler Benton Wesley when warranted. And she seemed like she really was actually fond of her niece Lucy.

Well you stuffed all of that to hell.

First she quit smoking and drinking, then she became such a prissy holier than thou pain in the arse that I didn’t even like her. Why is she constantly sighing and being exasperated or biting her tongue from nagging at someone. And when she is not doing that she is nagging people incessantly while bitching about how people take her for granted. Grow up.

And good old Pete Marino. He used to be a boorish rednecked cop with a heart of gold, but then you seemed to want to manufacture some sexual tension or some such. And ever since then he has been bouncing around like a pinball, one day turning up in motorcycle leathers (what happened to the truck with the rebel flag in the back window?) and the next decked out in all sorts of fashionable duds - invariably a consequence of a dangerous entanglement with some girl or other. Why couldn’t he just go back to missing Doris?

And don’t get me started on Benton Wesley. A decent character even when he started cheating on his wife with Dr Kay in a succession of anonymous hotel rooms. But he was your downfall - the storyline which really meant that the Kay Scarpetta series had jumped the shark. He DIED. You had him killed off by a bad guy, remember? And yes, while the body was burned to a crisp, that was actually a pretty good means of exploring everyone’s struggle to accept the death of a major character. It is NOT, repeat NOT a chance for you to have him turn up three books later with some convoluted story about how he had faked his death to investigate some conspiracy theory blah blah blah. Sorry, I must have nodded off there for a while.

So, I am sorry to say, I think that it is time for us to part company. It’s not me, it’s you. Even in a relationship with such low expectations, you just aren’t reaching them anymore. I think a clean break is best. I might finish reading this last book sometime, I might pick up a new one in an airport newsagency in the future, but let’s not grasp at faint hope. Let’s just accept that it is over and I am moving on to new opportunities. I don’t imagine that the loss of my sales will make much of a difference to your squillions of dollars in earnings.

Yours

A reader.

PS. You look like a schmuck in your author photo.

I was just reading the attached article entitled “Biblical battle of creation groups” in the Australian as submitted in a link by Alan as found here:

Whilst the article focuses on the accusations of financial impropriety and power broking within the Creation Ministry, I found this accusation fascinating:

“According to Mr Briese’s report, the campaign last year also involved John Mackay, a former associate of Mr Ham in Queensland, who was excommunicated in the 1980s after making allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia against a fellow member of the ministry”.

What…? Allegations of necrophilia within the Creation Ministry …?

For the uninitiated, ‘necrophilia’ is described as

“Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia and necrolagnia, is a paraphilia characterized by a sexual attraction to corpses.”

Consequently, I have been wondering as to whether this allegation is even more defamatory to a Creationist, not because it implies that the fellow minister of the ministry is a sexual pervert … but rather that it demonstrates that sin does occur AFTER death!.