TheGeoffRe(y)port

Worth Remembering. (Hat tip to Youthblog)

Armybarmy REMIX: 2 essentials for God’s Kingdom Come….

Great little post by Danielle Strickland - we heard her at Forge “Grassroots” this year and she’s an amazing person. But I loved her reflections here on hearing Jackie Pullinger:

“on this last note she mentioned that the natural impatience of working with the poor (for God’s kingdom to come) can lead us two ways: one is to the Kingdom (to be willing to look foolish and hold out for transforming power) or the other is to create another theology that allows us to accept things as they are (I couldn’t help but think about harm reduction here…).”

This matched up pretty directly with some thinking that Bec discussed in her (seriously good) post: “Mission is not for pansies“, where she’s relating back on spending a morning with Bev Kumasi:

“She is entirely legitimate. She talks about the Kingdom of God as if it runs through her blood. She seeks out people to love and to share Jesus with and her home. She expresses her frustration at churches who sit singing and never go and ‘do the work of the gospel’.

This is courage and makes the rest of us looks like pansies.

Mission is not for pansies. Yet sometimes that’s all we’ve got to work with - ourselves. Let us at least be willing.”

Beverley Kumasi - Definitely not a "pansy"

One of the most impacting things I’ve heard in a long time was hearing Bev talk about working with prostitutes around the Solomon Islands. As a result of her work with these girls, UNICEF had approached her with an offer to work for them, with the expectation that she would give these girls condoms. But the no-compromise approach, the refusal to take on a theology that accepts things as they are, had Bev telling these people to take their condoms to hell. It’s a tough call, but hearing her say that had me understand that Bev was determined never to be a part of the things that is tearing these girls apart.

Well, the last time I wrote here was before the month of June started, so for the first time since this blog started, I have an entire calendar month with no posts. That’s probably something of an indication of where things have been at for a while with life. Since I last wrote:

• I’ve changed jobs
• Finished up with youth ministry at YVV
• Spoken about youth ministry on a Sunday morning at YVV
• Had my grandmother go into hospital (twice - but she’s doing OK now by all reports)
• Had my sister get married
• Found out we’re getting kicked out of our beautiful little house because the landlord is selling up
• Planned for our trip to the Solomon Islands (we leave later today)

It’s not that I haven’t been wanting to write, but the creativity and the motivation just hasn’t necessarily come to the party. Plus I’ve spent the last week or so fighting off a mongrel of a cold. Of course, for most of you there’s very little of this that will come as a surprise, because you’ll have been following along over at the hub of all earthly wisdom.

Anyway, I’m planning on getting a few thoughts into binary today, but if I don’t, you certainly won’t hear from me until I’ve come back from the Solomons - circa July 12.

OK, some of you will have seen the story, but for those of you who haven’t, I’ve got a quiz for you. Take a good long look at this photo above. After pressure from “critics”, this advertisement apparently got pulled from the “Dunkin’ Donuts” website. So the question is: why?

1. The woman in the photo has been found to be in a lesbian relationship and it was thought that this wasn’t in keeping with Dunkin’ Donuts “family-values” image.
2. The term “dunkin’ perks” was taken to be an inappropriate euphemism.
3. People thought that the “arab-like” motif on the lady’s scarf could be seen as supporting terrorism.
4. This was the first time inside America that an “outside photo” has been shown from somewhere other than Dunkin’ Donut’s “spiritual home” - Canton, Massacusetts - the location of the Dunkin’ Donuts headquarters.

It’s ridiculous, right? None of those could possibly be true. But scroll down a little, and I’ll let you in on the secret…

Read the rest of this entry »

In the wake of the Australian Federal Budget delivered earlier this week, The Age published this article demonstrating the disappointment of some families who are earning just over the $150K threshold for “family welfare”. The means testing of the family tax benefit and baby bonus, means that once you’re over $150,000 a year as household income, you no longer receive these handouts from our government.

So begins the whining. From the article:

She and her husband Sam together earn a little over $150,000. They certainly aren’t doing it tough. But with two boys at school and rising interest rates biting, they hardly consider themselves flush.

“I don’t classify us as rich,” she says. “We all want the nice house, but I don’t call my house a mansion. I want it to be a home for my children.”

…”There doesn’t seem to be any reward for people who have put the hard effort in,” Mr Sciberras said.

…

the Government decided $150,000 would be the point at which the family welfare tap is turned off. Mrs Sciberras thinks it should be $200,000. The Brotherhood of St Laurence nominates $120,000.

(Source: “Wealthy? Not us, say this Mill Park Family… we’ve earned it” - theage.com.au)

Well I’m just about over hearing about it. Where does this sense of entitlement come from - that the government should be looking after you financially when you’re earning in excess of 150 grand. It’s pathetic. And you know what, if you’re earning $150,000 a year as a family and still believe that you’re not “rich”, maybe it’s time you got slapped in the face with a big fish called reality. I can’t understand why people would expect that they should receive a welfare payment when they have that sort of earning capacity. Shannon Knoll isn’t the only one in this country singing “What about me”, and the tune is getting pretty freaking pathetic.

Wifey tagged me on this movie meme. So I figured I’d better do it.

Name one movie that:

1. Made you laugh
Empire Records

2. Made you cry
Life Is Beautiful

3. You loved when you were a kid
The Lion King

4. You’ve seen more than once
Snatch

5. You loved but were embarrassed to admit it
Love Actually

6. You hated
How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days

7. Scared you
Independence Day (OK - I was pretty young)

8. Bored you
Hoodwinked

9. Made you happy
Batman Begins

10. Made you miserable
Last King Of Scotland

11. You weren’t brave enough to see
The Ring

12. One character you’ve fallen in love with
Amelie

13. The last movie you saw
Iron man

14. The next movie you hope to see
The Dark Knight

Had to laugh at reading this one. So there’s a global food crisis going on, and President Bush recently put out a statement attributing a bunch of the problem to developing nations like China and India experiencing economic growth, and basically finding themselves with a middle class:

During a news conference in Missouri, Bush mentioned India’s growing middle class, and said “when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.” This came on the heels of a similar statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that had already upset many in India. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

So the Indians got a little bit peturbed at being blamed for the global crisis, and told George exactly what they think is going on:

“George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics,” Jairam Ramesh, the minister of state for commerce, told The Press Trust of India after Bush’s remarks, which he said proved again how “comprehensively wrong” Bush is.

“To say that demand for food in India is causing increase in global food prices is completely wrong,” Ramesh said.

Politicians and academics in India cite various other reasons: diversion of arable land in the United States and Europe into ethanol production; trade subsidies by the United States and Europe; and the dollar’s decline. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

Issues like this are the reason it’s impossible not to wince when you hear comments from politicians (American or Australian) that talk about the importance of “protecting the American/Australian way of life”. Because while there’s a bunch of values tied up in our “way of life”, and probably some values that are worth keeping, it also encompasses a presumption of standard of living which is completely unsustainable if applied to the global population. We’ve got to recognise that the standard of living we have taken for granted in countries like our own are way beyond the resources of the world, and that any effort to “make poverty history” requires a violent reduction in western affluence).

So well done to India for telling the Yanks where they can shove it.

This is one of the most amusing attempts at gathering sympathy that I’ve heard in a long time:

“The motor vehicle industry has slammed a budget plan to increase the tax on luxury cars, saying it will hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel and could force makers to drop safety features.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has confirmed that tomorrow’s budget will increase the tax on cars of more than $57,000 from 25% to 33% and will affect about 105,000 car purchases a year.

The plan is part of budget cuts aimed at the wealthy.

Mr Swan said the changes would mainly affect imported cars such the S-Type Jaguar, and increase its price by $2600.” (Source: The Age - Squeals over plan for luxury car tax)

Let me just be certain that I have this correct: an extra 2 and a half thousand on cars over $57,000 is going to “hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel”. If families are hurt by how much it costs to fill up with petrol, maybe they should be considering a slightly more affordable vehicle. It makes me sick; this deeply embedded sense of entitlement for excessively luxurious items that has been bred through this consumer culture of ours. Because that quote there my friends would make me vomit, if I wasn’t so busy laughing.