All Envy

I had a conversation with a colleague about the big banks.

It came up because I mentioned how my wages get paid into my account late in the evening.  My colleague told me that it’s because the banks hold onto the money as long as possible in order to make some money off my wages.

Of course the vibe of his speech was ‘how dare the banks earn a profit from wages’.  I retorted by saying that I don’t begrudge banks earning big profits.  I prefer this to a profitless bank.

If it’s true that banks hold onto my money for profit, then how clever of them.  As long as I get paid the right amount at the end of the day and the bank doesn’t go broke.  I’m not missing it, as long as it comes.

Then his theme turned to the fees charged by banks.  But what do we really want from our banks?  We want them to look after our money.  They are doing that well and truly.  The varying levels of success in achieving this depends on opinion.

Then came the topic of large salaries received by bank executives.  People would say they could do the job.  But really they couldn’t, and wouldn’t.  They earn a lot of money mainly because it’s a hard job and to get the best person the banks need to offer remuneration.  Of course we would all like to earn that money, but it’s pure envy to insult the bank bosses based on their salaries.

We call the banks greedy for earning profits, charging fees and paying executives large salaries.  But we don’t look at ourselves and our greed and envy.

Contrast

Finally watched the episode of 'Q and A' featuring Peter Jenson, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.  I had been told previously that Jenson performed well particularly as he was under fire frequently from outspoken writer and comedian, Catherine Devany.

Peter Jenson was indeed classy.  He was very considered in his answering of questions on rather touchy topics such as 'marriage equality', meaning of submission, asylum seekers and health of homosexuals.  All he wanted was for people to be able to civilly discuss these issues without being shouted down.  It's a fair request.

But in typical 'Q and A' style there was one who was the antithesis to Jenson's class and respectfulness.  I'm referring to Catherine Devany.  She was classless, brash, disrespectful, discourteous and mannerless.  She has a harsh voice to which it is difficult to listen.  She interrupted frequently, which was just plane rude.

No mention yet about what she actually said.  But if someone is going to behave in such a manner then what she says essentially becomes irrelevant.   Her actions are saying enough.

Although Devany's view on marriage as "a mistake I think everyone should be allowed to make" leads one to wonder who it was who hurt Catherine so much earlier in her life.  She is just so angry, something must have happened.

Jenson stated his view very well.  He was calm and considered, especially when explaining the biblical meaning of submission in marriage.  Yet Devany interrupted rudely and labelled the notion misogynist, archaic and medieval.

On the health of homosexuals, Jenson requested a civil discussion of bringing out facts about the issue.  Facts are in dispute as to whether or not homosexuals have a lower life expectancy, and if so, why?  He was very open though clear on his doctrine.  He welcomed discussion. 

Devany on the other hand is closed minded.  She claimed the church was intolerant.  Yet based on her performance on this night one wonders where the intolerance truly lies.

Niche to Fill

Must have been a slow news day.

Channel 9 News claimed that new retail fashion house, Zara, is missing out on part of the market as they don't stock 'plus size' clothing.

This is a pointless thing to say!!

It's not as if Zara forgot to send the specs for 'plus size' outfits to their manufacturer.  This is not a silly mistake that needs correction from the self-appointed fashion police.  No, this is a deliberate act from the retailer to target a specific part of the market.  They are obviously confident that they can sell a lot of clothes despite the narrow size range.  It's their prerogative and good luck to them.

The 'niche' of 'plus size' women's fashion has largely been filled by other fashion houses such as sixteentwentysix and mysize.  If there is a hole in the market then it will be filled.  For if there is money to be made then there is always someone who will want to make it.  It is one of the joys of the free market.

This news story though was just a chance for 'plus size' women to play the victim-of-discrimination card.  Perhaps the Zara stuff won't suit larger body shapes anyway.

Care Factor

The NSW govt has to cut spending from its budget.  This is largely because it inherited a basket-case courtesy of the previous Labor govt.

So when people from charitable organisations get word that their revenue from the govt is being cut  they immediately go for the heart strings, accusing the govt of not caring.

This was in evidence on the channel 10 news (27/10/12).  A Cystic Fibrosis supporter accused the govt, "they just don't care".

This was music to opposition leader John Robertson's ears.  He in turn amplified the language by calling the govt "maliciously callous".

Some perspective people, please.  They are broke!  Broke because John Robertson's colleagues had spent money recklessly over many years.

John Robertson ought to acknowledge the mess his political party created.  Then it would be nice if he would explain to the people of NSW what he would cut instead.

Of course he doesn't have to do this as he is in opposition.  This is convenient for him.  While he knows cuts must be made he won't admit to anything.

Voting Green

The latest 'Eternity' magazine (October 2012, Number 30) had a special feature titled, "Can Christians Vote Greens?"

This style of question can lead to interesting discussion.  Just replace 'vote Greens' with whatever you like and enjoy the conversation that will ensue. I have found that the common answer is, 'yes……but…..'

For the question 'can Christians vote Greens?' Eternity had a contributor stating 'yes', 'never' and 'his pen hovers'.

All highlighted the good points of the Greens.  They do have good points and if they would stick to these points then they would be more votable.

Arguing 'yes' was Darren Cronshaw, a Baptist pastor of Auburn Life Church in Melbourne.  He liked to point to the Greens' views on social justice issues such as asylum seekers and climate change as their redeemable feature. 

He has jumped right on the emotional bandwagon like many social justice supporters.  A vote for the Greens on social justice issues is to deal with them on a superficial level and not think through each issue or its ramifications.  Then, when ramifications occur they seek band-aid solutions.  All this while continuously tugging at the heart strings.

For the asylum seeker issue the Greens would advocate no detention at all.  They would neglect the issue of where to accommodate them and how they would be integrated into Australian society.  They would suggest that we have plenty of room, infrastructure and resources in Australia.  When in actual fact they are sorely lacking.  It's ironic that resources are something about which I thought the Greens cared so much.

As well as this, there is the problem of not knowing who they are.  Some refugee advocates would state we have a bigger problem with holiday makers overstaying their visa.  If this is the case then they need to be dealt with too.  But this is no justification for allowing a flow of 'asylum seekers' without appropriate checks and limitations.

Now, if there's ever an emotive issue it's climate change.  'Think about future generations' is the repeated bleat of some.  Yes, we ought to look after God's creation.  We are called to do it through the words of Genesis 1:26.  But the Greens don't have God and the creation story in mind when they advocate for the environment.  They are 'earth worshipers', apologising to the planet for raping it of its beauty and integrity merely by existing.  This pushes God out of the picture whilst they consume their time appeasing 'mother earth', the god of the green planet.  The Greens' view of creation and our place in it is very different to the Christian worldview.

Cronshaw does acknowledge that some Christians have "moral reasons" for not voting Greens.   This acknowledgement seems to trivialise these moral concerns, which are pivotal to Christian living.

These moral concerns are major, not trivial, according to Roslyn Phillips, researcher for Family Voice.  She wrote the 'never' answer to the headline question.  In her role she went to the Greens with some fundamental questions, such as

• Would you retain Christian prayers being recited in parliament?
• Would you preserve the Current definition of marriage?
• Do you oppose creation of children as a commodity for same sex couples?
• Do you oppose euthanasia?

All answers came back to Mrs Phillips as an emphatic NO!  What's more, the Greens have also shown their disapproval of Scripture in schools, Chaplains in schools and Christian schools being able to hire teachers based on their faith, as well as their ability.  They appear to be no friend to the average Christian.

David Hastie, an education commentator, answered the headline question with 'his pen hovers'.  There was some balance to the points he made.  He stated that, "for everything I agree with….there is an equal and opposite reaction".  As in, for every policy position of the Greens he liked there is another that ruins their chances of gaining his vote.  Hastie believes that the Greens are a "far cry from the core business of environmentalism".  If they were just about the environment then maybe they would make some sense.

Roslyn Phillips told about how her elderly aunt voted Greens once, after becoming dissatisfied with the two main parties.  She was most distraught when informed of the principles for which they stand.  She's not alone on this.

But the wool is being pulled from peoples' eyes.  The Greens true nature is increasingly on display.

So, can Christians vote Greens?  Of course.  But we can be deceived as easily as anyone else.  To vote Greens as a Christian there is much to consider.

On top of everything Roslyn Phillips and David Hastie mentioned, the Greens are basically atheist, but more than that they are Anti-Christian.  They support so many policies that oppose fundamental Christian doctrine e.g. pro abortion and pro euthanasia (i.e. pro murder).  They aim to eradicate the church at every chance they get.

No friend of the Christian indeed.  Be aware of the wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15)