Author: gordonmoyes.com

Scripture: Psalm 119:9-16

Young adults are my favourite kind of people. I know exactly who I have in mind when I speak of young adults, and they do too, but many older adults have some confusion about who exactly are young adults.

You become an adult in Australian society by being allowed to do four things: vote and get called up for military service – events that are reasonably rare – and get drunk legally and drive a car – rights that too frequently are exercised together. In the past, becoming adult was also associated with moving from school into the workforce, from living in the parents’ home to living on their own, from financial dependence to financial independence.

Today it is not like that. A 23-year-old may have a partner but no job, a child but no partner, be a student and living with parents, be a student and married, have a job but be living with parents; have no job, no partner, no child and be living with parents, but still feel adult.

Adulthood is also a stage of psychological and personal development by which time it is assumed that individuals have established their identity and are well on the way to being independent, responsible, self-disciplined and purposeful. If this is adulthood, many of us are still on the way!

Others argue that we always carry something of the child within us and that the healthiest balance is to recognise and accept both elements, the adult and the child, each of which is appropriate at particular times.

In some societies, reaching adulthood is clearly marked by ritual and ceremony at a certain age or on assuming a particular status. Jesus, on reaching thirteen, went to Jerusalem for His Bar Mitzvah and spoke of “being about His Father’s business.” From this time on, He worked as a carpenter to help support the family in Nazareth.

Today attaining adult status tends to be gradual, complex and sometimes ill-defined, but usually occurs with the young adults still at home; still at home, that is, in their parents’ home!

1. How many young adults are living at home?

More than we might have thought! The most recent census shows more than six in ten people aged 15-24 years were living with their parents “on the cheap”. About 29% of all young adults not in full-time education are also living at home.

Then another 31% still in full-time education are still living at home. So 60% of those under 25 years of age still live with their parents, although few of those parents were living with their own parents at the same age.

It has been observed that patterns of family life differ from age to age, and from culture to culture, but in general Australian young people have left home when they finish their schooling. In a number of European, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries it is the norm for the children to live at home until they marry, and not to leave at all if they do not ever marry.

But in Britain, Western Europe, the USA and Australia, children have tended to claim their independence much earlier and set up their own homes by their early twenties.

However in the past decade or so it has been noted by the demographers that many children are not leaving home as early, or are leaving and coming back to live once again in their parental homes. This has led to a changed dynamic of growing up, especially for the parents who thought they were just about over the ‘empty nest syndrome’ and now have the kids back home again.

The experts suggest that in a time of economic insecurity people tend to band together, and children stay close to the fold, in order to save money. This pattern has been called “the boomerang kids”: they leave and come back, leave and come back, sometimes regularly over the years until they are capable of handling life on their own. It can happen after finishing university when the young adults have huge debts to pay off, between jobs, or after a marriage fails.

A Harvard Center for Housing Studies report found a direct correlation between rental prices and adult children’s decisions to live with their parents. Add to that the big increases in university tuition and HECS fees, and the young adult may be saddled with huge debt before they have even earned their first pay. Typical Australian university students accumulate sizable debts, especially those pursuing medicine and law whose courses can add up to $80,000.

Parents are usually happy to have the children back, too, especially if they see that they are actively saving money for their future, to save for a wedding, for a down payment on a home, or to start a business.

The Sun Herald Family Survey in 2004 found that 83% of parents did not want their children to leave home before they were 21; about half the adult children living at home were students and the other half were working; 44% contributed to the household income; and 80% helped out with the housework.

The New York based Families and Work Institute researchers were surprised to find that 25% of employed parents had children from 18 to 29 years old living at home with them at least half of the time. They also observed that families with middle and higher incomes were more likely to have children at home than were lower income households.

It appears that there is no longer an assumption about a clear-cut departure age. Demographers suggest that there needs to be a new life stage assigned to those between 18 to 25 who are past adolescence but not yet mature enough to be taking on the social and economic roles of adulthood. Many in this age group are delaying the usual stages of adulthood by going to university longer, marrying later, and having children later in life than earlier generations did.

This change of life pattern has affected the relationships between the parent and child generations, but researchers report that they get along very well. Today’s older adults are more accepting and more like friends than earlier generations were. In general it has been found that the parents liked having their adult children around. And, as one mother quipped, “They can live with me now, as long as I can live with them later!”

2. Why are more young adults staying at home longer?

Because circumstances have changed. In Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving home was closely associated with marriage, education and employment.

One reason for more young adults staying home longer is the shift to later marriages. Between 1940 and 1970 young people left home earlier to get married. In the 1970s, the age at which they left remained the same, but since the 1980’s the trend away from marrying young in Australia has been strong.

In 1972, 33% of Australian women were married as teenagers and 83% by their 25th birthday. But twenty years later, only 5% married as teenagers and less than half before they turned 25 years. The percentage married by 25 at the beginning of 1991 was lower than during the 1930s Depression, when the state of the economy discouraged people from marrying.

Furthermore, the trends already evident among younger women promise that the proportion of Australian women marrying under the age of 25 will continue to decline sharply over the next five years. Today only 17% of young adult men marry before they turn 25 years.

Although the marriage rate has fallen for women and men aged 20-24, findings show that 23-year-olds have generally positive responses to marriage and most expected to marry.

Another reason why young adults are staying home longer is the increased years spent in education. In the 1980s, the number of young people staying on at school to Year 12, plus the increasing number undertaking post-secondary education, meant more young adults were engaged in study and therefore were at home.

Another reason why young adults are staying home longer is the virtual disappearance of full-time employment for 15 to 19 year-olds and, later in the decade, as the recession hit, rising unemployment for 20-24-year-olds. Having no job keeps them at home.

This means that even some employed young adults find it very difficult to manage away from their parents. For many, the prospect of buying a home seems impossible or very remote, but some opt to remain with parents and save while they can.

Economic pressures also arise for those who have left home. Losing a job, mounting bills and sudden unexpected expenses such as extensive car repairs or hospital treatment can all be decision points for young adults to move back in with parents. Sometimes there is no particular crisis – just a realisation that it is exceedingly difficult to make any headway financially while living independently from parents.

So many young adults live with their parents because they are not able to be financially independent. Young adults believe that while it costs a lot to keep themselves, it does not cost much for mum and dad to keep them.

Parents apparently can work economic miracles so that free board and lodging is expected by many. Some are studying full or part-time, some are unemployed, some have not been able to establish themselves in a career, but whatever the reason, it is cheaper for their parents to pay than they themselves.

Often it is early separation from marriage. This can lead young adults to return home for both emotional and financial support. Their parents would rather have died than return home, and they forced themselves to work through their marriage difficulties rather than divorce.

Young adults after divorce with or without children of their own, frequently return for a while to readjust and make other living arrangements. There may be other reasons.

Sometimes this can be for good reasons, such as when our daughter, her husband and three children moved in with us while builders added a second storey to their home. Some parents have a never-empty nest!

3. What’s it like for young adults to stay at home?

The experience of going or staying is often emotional. Young people leave home willingly or reluctantly. They leave with confidence, hope and a sense of adventure. They leave with trepidation and anxiety, in fear, disgrace and despair.

They may be encouraged out, helped out, pushed out, or run out. They may be clung to, cried over, exhorted to stay. When the young leave, parents sigh with relief, weep for the loss, fear the worst, hope for the best. Some parents experience all of these reactions on the same day!

There are advantages and disadvantages for young adults who continue to live with their parents. They have the support, security and company which living at home provides. Women more than men tend to add comments about love and caring as a family. Living at home is cheaper and offers an opportunity to save.

Living at home usually means that some services are provided – meals, washing, ironing, housework and general tidying up. More men than women mention this as an advantage. Although some gender roles have changed, most young adult men are not into housework, cooking and cleaning, and their parents seem to be leaving this part of growing sensitive new-age guys to their future wives to undertake.

The major motivations for young people to leave home are for independence, or to live with a partner with or without marriage. If neither of these are strong motivations and there is a reasonable amount of independence and freedom available at home, and some financial advantage in living at home, then most young adults come to the conclusion that they love their parents too much to leave, and parents believe them!

Yet parents expect their young adult children to leave home. They expect them to lead their own lives and be independent. Yet genuine love for their children makes them want to hang on to them for just a little longer. So with economic, educational, marriage and child-bearing opportunities for young adults changed and both parents and young adults wanting a combined household, it is not surprising that this generation, more than the previous, want to stay with mum and dad.

The major area of conflict between the generations

Yet about two-thirds of young adults living at home mention constraints on what they could do, lack of privacy and occasional value clashes. One area in particular has to do with expressions of sexuality.

Mother and father may give their young adults all the freedom in the world, but wait until favourite daughter suggests her boyfriend spends the night in her bedroom! Sexual behaviour and attitudes have changed with use of contraception, the waning of Christian moral restraints and the earlier sexual maturity of young people. More adolescents are sexually active and probably more experienced than their parents were at the same age.

There is now apparent public acceptance of young people cohabiting prior to marriage, implying acceptance of sex before marriage. In the 1988-89 National Social Science Survey, 44% of 23-year-olds said their parents would definitely not accept them having a pre-marital sexual relationship in their house. The strength of parents’ views varied, but they were clearly opposed to sex before marriage. Parents have conservative attitudes in general; and expected their home standards to be respected and believe they have the right to set the rules in their own house.

About 40% of the 23 year olds said they would not feel comfortable about premarital sex in their parents’ home; 23% said they would feel comfortable only if the relationship was a committed one and their parents accepted the person; but only 38% said they would feel all right about it.

When my children came home from school repeating a new swear word just learnt, Beverley and I would say: “You may know that word, but it is never used in this house.” In the same way if drugs or drinking alcohol would have been proposed we would have said, “That is not the standard of behaviour in this house.” If sleeping together had been proposed we would have replied: “This is our house, too, and the way this house runs does not allow sleeping together.”

Our experience with four normal children (they have provided, with their spouses, eleven grandchildren so are sexually active!) is that our young adults respected our views.

The adjustments between parents and young adults

What adjustments have to be made to the lifestyles of parents and children who live together? There are many potential advantages in households of different generations. There is the possibility of greater understanding between generations, and of mutual financial and emotional support.

There are, however, potential problems. There may be the disruption to parents’ plans and activities, lack of role clarity, difficulties with matters such as cleaning and house maintenance, conflicting lifestyles, use of household resources, entertaining friends, rent and other charges.

Parents may have retained houses which are too large for themselves alone for longer than they normally would; they may have to continue in the workforce for longer than they anticipated; some take on grandchild-minding responsibilities when they had hoped their parenting days were over; some feel they have failed as parents because their offspring have not left home at the “normal” time. Young adults in the home may have negative effects on a marriage because of the additional stress placed on parents.

The relationships between parents and unemployed young adults living with them generally exaggerate any poor relationships between them. Each of these tension points mentioned needs to be listed and discussed together when the relationship is good, and not left in the realm of uncertainty. If something I have written has prompted a response in you, make sure you discuss it with your loved ones.

Young adults form a crucial bridge between one generation and the next. They carry values, attitudes and beliefs derived from their parents and from the society and culture in which they have been raised. At the same time, they help shape, by their behaviour and the decisions they make, changes in the society in which the next generation will live. Most will become parents and raise children, others will have contact with and influence children less directly; but all young adults will contribute to the pattern of social change. The values that they hold now therefore have important implications for the future.

There are differences in the lives of today’s young adults and those of their parents. In general, young adults marry later than their parents, more live in de facto relationships, more have had a number of significant relationships before marriage, have children later, and young women expect to return to work after they have children with someone else caring for the children. Often that caring is from the grandparents, who thought their years of child caring were done, but who would not say “No” for the world; not because of excessive love for their children, but because they want the best for their grandchildren!

Jesus was a young adult who stayed home with His mother to support the young family members after Joseph died. In His time there was no social security, no widows’ pension, or the like. The extended family had to care for the widow and the young. So Jesus stayed at home with Mary and the younger children until He left home at thirty to be baptised and become a travelling preacher.

By that time the other younger children were old enough to work in the carpentry shop, even though the next eldest boy, James, had already left to go to Rabbinical school to study for the priesthood. But Jesus worked and contributed to the family income, and even at His death was concerned for his mother’s welfare, asking His friend, John, to care for her.

He followed the Commandment (Exodus 20:12) “Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.” But Jesus also said (Matt 19:3-7) “at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,”5 and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Jesus gave the young adult the example of living in harmony with the parental generation at home, and also the encouragement to leave home and form a new family.

References: The Australian Institute For Family Studies: “Family Matters” April 1990; August 1991; December 1991.

Rev the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC

Humanity’s hallowed words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are to be removed from birth certificates in the UK in order to permit homosexual couples to be named as ‘parents’ of surrogate children. This means that the true, biological parents will no longer be identified on the documents that provide the legal record of a child’s birth. That is because same-sex couples are now considered the legal parents of children born through surrogacy or IVF treatment, a move applauded by the gay rights activists who have been fighting for the change.

To falsify birth records knowingly is an evil that has been reached by the small increments of skewed thinking by the social engineers trying to make a place for same sex couples where there is no place. Instead they have displaced altogether the rightful parents. Even lawyers and fertility experts are questioning this development because the provision can be used mischievously to exclude a father with whom the mother is angry. The government issued birth certificate is no longer an objective document with a statement of biological fact but a contested document shaped by political players and the contemporary needs of homosexual adults clamouring for their rights above all others’ rights.

The homosexual view is that the reality of homosexuals’ family lives are being recognised at last, and that male and female same-sex couples no longer have to go through the hard work of an adoption procedure. The law means that from next week, two men who have a child by a surrogate mother will be able to apply to a family court for an order making them the legal parents. The court will rule on whether they are fit to bring up the child. In such a case an original birth certificate naming the mother will exist at the start, but then be replaced by a new document naming the two men as parents if the judge grants a parental order. Theoretically the child will be able to trace the original birth certificate once he or she turns 18, unless the needs of the adult homosexuals has changed again by then and barred them from that, as well.

The rules governing birth certificates have been strictly upheld since they were established in 1837 so a change of this magnitude is unprecedented. Family lawyers said the new rule allowing two parents of the same sex to appear on birth certificates was a worry. In their eagerness to be fair to homosexuals the social engineers have perpetrated a great injustice on the established order of mothers, fathers, and children. And they are not finished yet with their work. With a sense of foreboding I wonder what they will come up with next?

To read my statements on this issue please go to:
http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2010/01/08/victory-for-families-on-not-allowing-same-sex-adoption/
http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/07/10/the-right-to-have-a-mother-and-father-serves-a-childs-best-interests/

On March 16, the Australian Education Union released two new reports which revealed the extent of the underfunding of TAFE and the consequences for thousands of people who are missing out on training and education as a result.

The reports are a national survey of over 2,600 TAFE teachers and managers, and a research paper prepared by the Centre for the Economics of Education and Training (CEET) at Monash University.

The “State of our TAFEs Survey” revealed that in NSW:

– 76 per cent of teachers and managers said their TAFE did not have enough resources to meet industry needs, particularly in the local community; – 58 per cent of teachers and managers said they had been forced to turn away students in the last two years; – 46 per cent said there were student waiting lists in their TAFE; – 62.4 per cent responded that the overall budget for their department had decreased in the last two years; and – 88.5 per cent believed that their workload had increased since the start of 2008.

Teachers and managers nominated the main industry areas in NSW from which students were turned away as: engineering and related technologies (15.9 per cent), information technology (15.7 per cent), education (15.1 per cent), and language, literacy and numeracy (12.2 per cent).

According to the Australian Education Union, this survey reveals that TAFEs are unable to meet the growing demand from students or industry because they are so starved of funds. Mr Angelo Gavrielatos, President of the AEU, said “Students are being turned away or forced to wait in trade areas like engineering where there are critical national skills shortages.”

The CEET report revealed that in NSW, real recurrent government expenditure per hour of public vocational education and training had declined by 15.7 per cent since 2003. Both the State and Federal Governments need to invest more in TAFE to ensure that the NSW public is able to access quality vocational educating and training.

TAFE’s funding would have been $624 million (or 17 per cent) higher in 2008 than it actually was if both the spending per hour and its share of the money allocated by governments had been maintained at 2003 levels. The report also showed that to reach the ambitious COAG targets set for increased qualifications, an additional $200 million must be spent on average every year between 2009 and 2020.

Mr Gavrielatos continued, “TAFE is recognised as one of the highest quality providers of training and education anywhere in the world and our prosperity as a nation is directly linked to it. There will be no education revolution in Australia unless we invest substantially more in TAFE.”

As the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pointed out, some of the things that will not be possible without TAFE in the next decade include the national broadband network, cleaner power generation, hybrid and electric vehicles, more efficient houses and buildings and capturing carbon. It is a worthy goal to have the best-trained and educated workforce in the world. But only by investing in our high-quality TAFEs can we achieve it.

Click on the links to read the reports: State of our TAFEs Survey, CEET Report

On April 28 each year, unions, workers and their families and friends, in over 100 countries gather to remember the men, women and children who were killed or injured at work, or became sick from exposure to hazardous substances; were tortured, imprisoned, murdered or oppressed because of their trade union activities; and suffered degradation, pollution or destruction.

In Australia, every year around 440 workers are killed in work-related accidents (that equates to more than 8 per week). Diseases such as cancer and asbestos related illnesses cause an estimated 2,300 additional deaths per year (or 44 a week). Road accidents in Australia claim about 30 lives per week. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more than 15 serious injuries occur every hour (or 1 injury every 4 minutes).

Worldwide, there are at least 1.3 million worker deaths per year. This is nearly double the number of deaths due to war, 12,000 of those are children. Over 160 million new injuries and work related diseases are reported each year. International trade unions estimate that each year over 200 trade unionists are killed or “disappear”, 8,500 are arrested, 3,000 injured and almost 20,000 are fired for trying to improve basic working conditions.

On construction sites around Australia, construction workers will stop for a minute’s silence to remember their work mates. Our construction industry is one of the toughest industries to work in and statistics show that one construction worker is killed per week in Australia. Hundreds more are injured.

The International Day of Mourning Service will be held at 12.30pm for 12.45pm on Wednesday 28 April 2010 at Reflection Park, Little Pier Street, Darling Harbour (between the Novotel Rockford Hotel on Darling Harbour and the Sydney Entertainment Centre). For further details or to RSVP, please contact Robyn Griffith on 02 9881 5916.

The International Labour Organization has found the Rudd Government’s construction industry laws breach international labour standards by targeting workers, and their right to belong to unions, for prosecution in an unfair way.

In a report handed down last month, the ILO made a new ruling strongly criticising the role of Government Inspectors in the ABCC (Australian Building and Construction Commissioner) for abandoning their traditional role – which is protecting workers and enforcing legal entitlements. The ILO is the United Nations international body responsible for protecting basic worker rights and is made up of representatives from governments, employers and workers.

In its most recent report the ILO Committee of Experts found: the prosecution of workers should not be the primary duty of ABCC inspectors, that should be the protection of workers; the ABCC is biased in chasing workers not employers; the policy of prosecuting workers was made worse by the fact that the laws under which the cases were brought have themselves been repeatedly found to be in breach of fundamental labour standards; and prosecution of workers by ABCC inspectors prejudices the authority and impartiality needed between inspectors, employers and workers.

According to CFMEU Construction National Secretary Dave Noonan, the ILO has called into question the role of the ABCC and its inspectors who have been active in a policy of prosecuting workers and unions. “The ILO has directly criticised the work of the ABCC and exposed its practice of prosecuting workers as a breach of international labour standards. These laws and the ABCC put the interests of big developers ahead of the rights of ordinary workers. New construction legislation due to be debated by the Senate will not meet ILO standards, leaving the Rudd Government internationally humiliated and embarrassed by its record on workers’ rights.”

According to the ABCC annual report 2006-2007: 73 per cent of investigations were of trade unions, 11 per cent of investigations were of employers, not a single employer has been prosecuted by the ABCC for failure to pay minimum lawful entitlements, only 4 employers were referred to statutory agencies for breaches, and the overwhelming majority of individuals called to secret interrogations were workers as opposed to management representatives.

The building and construction laws have now been criticised seven times by the ILO for undermining workers’ rights to participate in collective action and to be represented by their union. Mr Noonan concluded, “Every construction worker out there knows that ABCC investigators continue to harass and intimidate workers on construction sites. You cannot be selective about respecting international laws. The Prime Minister puts himself forward as someone who believes in international law, as well as someone who stands up for workers’ rights. Getting rid of these unfair laws would show he is sincere on both counts.”

Family First believes Australians work to live, they do not live to work. Parents in the paid workforce are parents first and workers second. Achieving a work/family balance is a real challenge and too often family time is sacrificed for work demands. Family First voted against WorkChoices because it removed guarantees for basic workplace conditions and made families worse off. It is important that workers are treated fairly and feel secure in their jobs and that they are guaranteed conditions such as overtime and meal breaks.

Family First believes we need to strike the right balance between the needs of employers and employees. Most employers and employees do the right thing but we need strong protections for those who seek to abuse the system.

Family First introduced legislation to ensure all workers who have to work on public holidays would be guaranteed a minimum of another day off paid at time and a half; that all workers would get an unpaid meal break of at least 30 minutes after five hours; that all workers would receive overtime at a minimum rate of time and a half, and that all workers would be guaranteed penalty rates at a minimum of time and a half for working anti-family hours as well as their full redundancy entitlements.

Family First successfully amended WorkChoices to double the protection period for workers’ redundancy pay to two years. This followed the Tristar fiasco where workers allege they are being kept on the payroll with nothing to do as Tristar tries to slash its redundancy bill from $4.5million to $1 million.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda, has called on all Australians to get behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and use it to improve programs, policy and legislative development in Australia.

Speaking ahead of last Saturday’s second anniversary of Australia’s formal support of the Declaration on 3 April last year, Commissioner Gooda said the Declaration was a practical tool for building mutual respect and forging genuine partnerships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and state, territory and federal governments.

“The Declaration is more than just a piece of paper. The Declaration provides us with clear signposts to guide the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, culture, and the rights of Indigenous peoples to have a say in things that impact on our lives,” Commissioner Gooda said.

“The Declaration sets the standards we must all aspire to in order to ensure the survival, dignity and well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Last year’s formal support of the Declaration by the Australian Government was an essential first step, but the challenge remains for all Australians to embrace these standards”, the Commissioner continued.

Commissioner Gooda said since the Declaration had been formally endorsed by Australia, it had been referred to in Parliamentary debates and in Senate Committee reports. He said Indigenous organisations such as the Goldfields Land and Sea Council and the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) have demonstrated how the Declaration could be used to place the rights of Indigenous peoples “front and centre” in developing policies framed on the Declaration.

Family First believes that redressing the endemic disadvantage of Indigenous Australians is a matter of immediate priority. Family First believes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, like all Australians, have rights and responsibilities. Indigenous Australians have the right to good education, housing and health care.

This can best be done by rebuilding the role of family in indigenous communities and working with indigenous communities to create partnerships with public and private sector leaders in key areas of service delivery. Family First recognises that adequate health care and housing will support educational efforts for Indigenous children and youth, and that educational and employment opportunities will be vital to the future living standards of Indigenous Australians.

Dr Gordon Moyes said, “Family First wants to ensure that all indigenous children are literate to standards equal to non-indigenous children, so they will be able to fully participate in the community. This requires a substantial investment by Governments in schools, but it also requires indigenous parents to make sure their children attend schools and to ensure education is valued.”

For several years, Dr Moyes has been an active supporter of the HIPPY Program. HIPPY is an acronym, which stands for the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. This is an innovative Aboriginal-run early-childhood enrichment project in La Perouse oversighted by the Brotherhood of St Laurence based in Melbourne.

HIPPY is a two-year, intensive early-childhood parenting program. It targets the most disadvantaged families by helping parents in their homes to help their three to five-year-olds develop “school readiness”, communication and relationship skills. There are strong connections now into the local Aboriginal population, including a community newsletter that contains both HIPPY and other local community information, and a HIPPY netball team of local children. The program is working with a target population that has issues of high levels of unemployment, low educational achievement, significant family disruption and mobility, and distrust of bureaucracy and authority.

“Family First wants a substantial investment to ensure that all Indigenous Australians have access to good health care. To boost the number of doctors in indigenous communities, Family First proposes abolishing the HECS debts for medical students who commit to work in these areas for a minimum of two years after they graduate.”

Dr Moyes concluded, “Family First believes that there should be an investigation into the feasibility of the private ownership of housing for indigenous Australians, as it may lead to better housing maintenance, house proud families and better communities.”

Maher Gohary is a new Christian convert from a Muslim background currently engaged in a long legal battle to change his state-issued religious registration from his old status of ‘Muslim’ to reflect his new status as a ‘Christian’. This will allow Mr Gohary and his family to be identified accurately, which is very important in conducting one’s day-to-day business in Egypt.

Back in June 2009 a court had ruled against his plea to be legally recognised as a Christian. He is appealing that verdict, but as yet no hearing date has been set. He and his family, therefore, are living in legal and religious-status limbo, which has had unfortunate ramifications. For instance, in September 2009 he and his daughter were stopped at the Cairo Airport two different times as they attempted to travel abroad, and Mr Gohary’s passport was confiscated. There was no reason offered by the authorities regarding this denial of travel. Six months on an Administrative Court has refused to return his passport, and yet again no reason has been offered for the basis of this removal of freedom of movement from Mr Gohary, who as an Egyptian citizen has the legal right to travel.

His is not the first case of this kind. In August 2007 Mohammed Hegazi was the first Egyptian Muslim convert to Christianity to try to change his religious registration. At the time he explained that he wanted to do this so that his children could be raised openly as Christians, be issued Christian birth certificates, and be married in Church. He also stated that he wants to be able to set a precedent of justice for other converts. His case parallels Maher Gohary’s, in that he too has had unjustified and unjustifiable rulings made against him. His appeal will only now be heard this month. Since 2007 he has been unable to obtain a passport for himself or anyone in his family.

Being a Christian is not illegal in Egypt but conversion from Islam to any other religion is punishable by death under one interpretation of Islamic law. The government has never ordered or carried out such an execution, according to the press, but Mr Hegazi was forced to go into hiding when he received death threats from Islamic clerics claiming his apostasy deserved death. Most other Muslim converts to Christianity either depart soon for the West or try to keep a very low profile. They usually face ostracism from their family, friends and neighbours and if the conversion becomes general knowledge they can receive death threats from militants, or harassment by police who use the laws against ‘insulting religion’ or ‘disturbing public order’ as the justification.

In an editorial for the Washington Post, the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the highest authority in Egypt for issuing fatwas, wrote against the killing of apostates stating that Muslims can choose a religion other than Islam. However, his opinion was roundly condemned by conservative Muslims who said he was inviting Muslims to leave their faith.

Because of the very real social taboo against conversion from Islam these two men who are trying to get official recognition are being very courageous. We should actively support their attempts at seeking fair outcomes, as Christian converts to Islam readily get new registration with their new religious status on it. This is an issue of equal treatment under the law, and a matter of social justice. This issue is causing a huge uproar in Egypt today. We will be watching with deep concern and interest the outcome of the appeals for both men.

The Sydney Prayer Breakfast is a new initiative happening for the first time this year at 7 am on June 4th, 2010 at the Shangri-La Hotel, and annually thereafter as a prayer gathering of Christians from all denominations to unite their hearts for Sydney. The intention is to call on our Heavenly Father for His blessing upon all the people of the city, to encourage believers in their trust and obedience to Him; and to be a light to fellow citizens. The speaker this year will be Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, and Australian singer Silvie Paladino will also be performing.

For registration ($50 per person), or for more information about the conveners of the Sydney Prayer Breakfast please visit their website at: http://www.sydneyprayerbreakfast.com.au

Scripture: 1 Peter 3:7 – 12

A well-known television actress and her husband are back together again, after a world-wide blaze of publicity. Now they are reconciled, at least for the moment. We wish them well.

“I have been a classic and abused wife,” she said. “Throughout our marriage he has hit me, struck me, thrown objects at me, punched me, abused me, pushed me against walls while he screams and shouts at me drowning out pleas for him to stop.” She threatened divorce, came back together again, was abused, sought divorce, and is now back with him again.

She is tired of being abused, but afraid of being apart. Her abuse has been real. She told the world press that in five stormy years, she has been battered, pulled around the house by the hair, bashed and bruised, stomped upon, and degraded. No person should take that violence.

I remember when Pauline Grace Hughes, age 48 at the time, claimed her husband bashed her, bit her, and chose to watch a State of Origin football match on television instead of going with her to a marriage counsellor, was acquitted of his murder. She had pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the murder of her husband on the basis of self-defence.

She told police that during an argument while drinking he had pushed her to the ground, bit her on the arm and said, “I’m going to bash you stupid” before she stabbed him. As she crouched on the floor, she had thought: “You’re not going to beat me senseless again.” “He has hurt me badly in the past. I’ve had broken ribs, I’ve had heaps of black eyes and hair pulled out and … when he said that, I thought, I don’t want to go to work with make-up on black eyes trying to make up excuses.”

She told the jury that at different times her husband pushed her into a plate-glass door, urinated over her, poured coffee over her head and tipped a pot plant on her. “He put a garden slug on a spoon and forced it into my mouth and made my dentures cut my mouth.” (SMH, Friday April 15, 1994.)

I have no time for such a brutal man, and her acquittal was justified. She was the first of several Australian women since who have been acquitted of the murder of her husband after domestic violence.

1. What do we mean by violence in the home?

I do not like the term “domestic” violence. The use of the word “domestic” somehow makes the action seem more respectable, and traditional men like police, doctors and clergymen have been reluctant to invade the privacy of the home and the intimacy of another man’s relationship. But in fact, what we have is simply violence in the home and that must be confronted.

Two women are killed every week following a domestic argument that ends violently. And what is generally not recognised is that violence in the home has a devastating effect upon the children involved. Remember that 43% of homicide victims were killed by someone in their own family, and 20% were killed by friends. One in four of all homicides are spousal homicides; and one in ten is a child under ten years.

In the study entitled Homicide between Intimate Partners in Australia, 1998, Carach and James from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) found that domestic violence plays a significant role in the lead up to lethal violence, accounting for 27 per cent of all homicides in Australia between 1989 and 1996.

Another study by the AIC in 2002, Homicides Resulting from Domestic Altercations, found that the majority of female homicide victims were killed during domestic altercations.

In a follow-up Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) study, Family Homicide in Australia, investigators Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushforth found that on average there were 129 family homicides each year, 77 related to domestic disputes. Killings between partners or spouses accounted for 60% of all family homicides in Australia, with women accounting for 75 % of the victims. A full quarter of these intimate homicides occurred after the partners had separated or divorced.

Family violence occurs in a context of unequal power relationships within the family, ideas about male authority over the family, women’s unequal access to economic security, and the treatment of family violence as a private concern rather than a public issue. Violence is all but invisible to the outside world yet it touches one in five marriages in Australia and that includes many inside the Church as well.

Violence falls broadly into four categories of abuse:

Physical abuse includes pushing, kicking, punching, use of a weapon to inflict injury, strangulation, cigarette burns and so on. All acts and threats to assault are criminal offences.

Psychological/emotional/verbal abuse is the use of words, language and other strategies to issue orders, threaten, insult, abuse, denigrate and degrade the female partner to destroy self-esteem.

Financial abuse means controlling and withholding access to the family’s resources, including money, the car, purchase and ownership of goods and property, or not allowing them to seek employment outside the home.

Social abuse refers to the social isolation inflicted upon a female partner through conduct that causes contact with family and friends to be curtailed or to cease, including forbidding participation in church-related social activities.

Domestic violence occurs in all geographic areas of Australia and in all socio-economic and cultural groups, although domestic violence is a more significant problem for certain groups, such as regional and rural Australia and Indigenous communities. All these behaviours are used to obtain power and control, and usually escalate in intensity and frequency over time.

2. What are the facts about home violence?

It was only in 1974 that ‘Elsie Women’s Refuge’, the first women’s refuge in Australia, was opened to care for women who had been bashed and their children. But by 1981, there were 33 refuges giving shelter to 11,000 women and children during the year – with 3,000 more of them turned away because of the lack of accommodation. During this time, I used the resources of Wesley Mission to open such refuges. Yet, each year, over 20,000 women were still turned away and sent back to their violent homes because all of our refuges were fully occupied.

The New South Wales 1981 Task Force on Domestic Violence investigated the range of services available to assist women suffering domestic violence and this is what they found:

· 27% of women said they went initially to the police, but fewer than one-third found the police to be helpful.
· 22% went initially to a doctor for help, but fewer than one-third found the doctor helpful.
· 5.5% of women went first to a women’s refuge for help. Three quarters of the women found this helpful.
· 5.5% went first to a clergyman for help, but only one quarter found this contact helpful.

Domestic violence is the single biggest cause of homelessness for Australian women.

As it is believed most incidences of domestic violence go unreported, it is difficult to measure the true extent of the problem. According to a study conducted in 1998 by Carlos Carcach from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Reporting Crime to the Police, most assaults against women where the victim knows the offender go unreported.

The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey, estimated that 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police that year compared to only 19% a decade before, which shows some progress in women’s willingness to report it.

The survey also showed that of those women who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 38% were victimised by their current or previous male partner. Of the women who had experienced violence by a current partner, 10 per cent had had an AVO issued against their current partner but the violence against her had still occurred.

3. What are the causes of family violence?

There are a number of theories about the causes of domestic violence:

· The Pathological Theory: the violent person is ill and he needs to be treated.
· The Psychological theory: the offender is jealous, dependent, possessive and needs counselling. The victim is depressed, insecure, and over-dependent.
· The Cycles of Violence theory: the violence is a learned pattern of behaviour from childhood in a home where violence characterised his family relationships.
· The Structural Theory: Pressures from society cause family violence due to frustration from unemployment, financial debt, and cultural differences.
· The Alcohol as a Contributing Factor theory: alcohol is almost always involved, not as the sole cause but as the trigger of the violence.
· The Feminist Theory: in a male-dominated society the patriarchal family structure is the cause of domestic violence due to men trying every way possible to preserve their authority and dominance.

Family violence is a complex problem with complex causes. We live in a violent society with an entertainment culture full of violence. We sanction violence as a way of life. Our mass media provide endless examples of violence and aggression on television, at the movies, on electronic gizmos, and in pornographic video games, websites and magazines. We are immersed in it. But that is no excuse for men not taking responsibility for their violent and abusive behaviour. They must learn to relate respectfully and equally to women despite the misleading and ugly messages they get from society.

5. The affect of home violence upon children

Children are the forgotten victims of the violence that occurs between their parents. While a great deal of attention has been directed to women as the primary victims of domestic violence – and quite rightly so – the effects on children have been generally overlooked. Society continues to perpetuate the myth that children are untouched by the violence in their family home.

In fact children are profoundly affected by domestic violence. Living in a home where domestic violence occurs frequently has been equated with living in a war zone or being involved in natural disasters such as fire, earthquakes or cyclones. Children from violent homes can exhibit the same sort of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms as child refugees from war zones.

Family violence not only psychologically and sometimes physically harms the child victims, but also is likely to establish patterns of violent behaviour. Women’s refuges, at any one time, cater for more children than women. Next to infants and toddlers, teenagers are most affected by family violence. Having lived with violence for a number of years, adolescents see their increasing independence as a means of escape from family conflicts.

Family conflict is a frequent cause of teenagers leaving home and, in some cases, leading a life on the streets, according to the Burdekin Report (1989). Not all children are doomed to repeat their parents’ violence so it is crucial that we do not create self-fulfilling prophecies telling children that if they grow up in a violent home they will become violent. Children have choices. Our job is to make these choices available to them and help support them through very difficult times.

During my 27 years of leadership to Wesley Mission, I saw our children’s’ homes expand from taking in children whose parents were unable to care for them, from 104 per year to over 4,000 per year. One of our Centres was open all night with staff prepared for police to arrive with crying children. Frequently the police had been called to a home to find the mother murdered, the children crying, and the father handcuffed and being taken away. In that one never forgotten hour the children lost forever their mother, their father, their home, and all of their security.

Wesley Mission then had the task of finding a stable, loving home that could take in up to six children at once, for we were committed to keeping the children together so they could support each other. Having lost both mother and father in one night, we would never countenance separating the siblings.

6. The failure of much church counselling

After years of beatings an abused woman finally did something for herself: she told her pastor and left her husband. But two months later she was back. She had succumbed to pressure from her pastor. He persuaded her to return to a man who had bashed her for 20 years. He told her marriage is too precious to be terminated if it can be saved. Since her husband had changed in the two months she was gone, shouldn’t she give him another chance, he said? She quickly succumbed. She went back to her husband. For the pastor, it was an easy victory. He had saved the marriage. But she bore the price.

Why did the pastor send her back? He had two correct ideas but not much common sense. The pastor’s sole objective in counselling the woman was reconciliation with her husband. That was his first mistake. Reconciliation is the ultimate goal in marital counselling, but it’s not always the immediate goal. When a wife leaves her husband because of physical abuse, the immediate goal should be the woman’s physical and emotional wellbeing.

The pastor should have believed her when she told him her husband had beaten her hundreds of times, and he should not have believed her husband when he said he was a changed man.

Believing the husband was the pastor’s second mistake. Jesus told us we should see (Matt 3:8) “fruit in keeping with repentance.” A chronic wife-beater must prove he is a changed man, and to prove it takes time. Chronic wife-beaters turn to the church and say “I’ve changed!” and the church, which believes in conversion, believes him. Then the wife is urged to go back to him. Jobless and broke, perhaps she has no alternative even though she does not believe her husband is a changed man. The scars are too deep. She finds it impossible to forgive immediately and forget his infidelities or the unnumbered beatings. She needs time. Quick solutions are no solutions.

“But what if she did it for publicity?” asks a sceptic. The first thing you must do with a beaten wife is to believe her. I’d rather be wrong on one publicity seeker than sceptical about a thousand abused women. Believe and assist. It is important for the church to have available immediate and safe accommodation, emergency financial assistance and access to interpreters if needed.

But immediate intervention and safety is not enough. Safe, secure and affordable housing; access to training or retraining; employment; child care; counselling and support groups; income security; protection from deportation; ongoing protection from violence, and recognition of additional needs are also required.

I interviewed a remarkable woman who had written her experiences as “Roslyn’s Story”; it is one woman’s moving account of her violent marriage. She requests that people stop saying what they usually say and learn a better response. Roslyn wants:

· The police to stop saying: ‘Calm down and charge him in the morning if you want to.’ But instead to say: ‘What can we do about making you feel safe?’
· The doctors to stop saying: ‘I’ll prescribe you a tranquilliser.’ But instead to say: ‘Would you like me to refer you to someone who is better qualified to help you than me?’
· The lawyers to stop saying: ‘We haven’t enough evidence.’ But instead to say: ‘We’ll get a restraining order.’
· The social workers to stop saying: ‘It happens to a lot of women.’ But instead to say: ‘Do you know your rights?’
· Health clinic sisters to stop saying: ‘It’s a difficult time for a husband when you have young children.’ But instead to say: ‘Can I make you aware of programs available on parenting and relationships.’
· Family Law counsellors to stop saying: ‘He has the right to access.’ But instead to say: ‘Let’s set a period of no access until he begins to work out his problems.’
· Your friends to stop saying: ‘I told you so.’ But instead to say: ‘I’ll give you any support I can.’
· Clergy to stop saying: ‘Forgive him.’ But instead to say: ‘The situation is intolerable for you and your children. Let us help you do something about it.’

6. What the Church is doing about family violence

The Synod of the Uniting Church adopted in 1991 a major program against family violence. The Church said “Physical, sexual and/or emotional violence occurs in many families, including families within the church community. We condemn all forms of violence in the family as sin, and commit ourselves to support the victims of family violence and to work for an end to such violence.” These words were then matched by a strong program to assist abused women and their children who needed shelter, counselling, support and love.

At Wesley Mission when I was Superintendent, we had special training programs for some 400 staff and volunteer counsellors. We had a 24-hour telephone service. We had built four houses for emergency family accommodation and appointed social workers to aid those women and children. We had family therapists and opened four centres with clinicians, psychologists and family counsellors to work with hundreds of families at risk. We had provided alternative accommodation for victims in some forty flats and units. We were advocates for women facing financial and legal problems. We had psychiatrists and a hospital on hand for severe emergencies. We had ministers who were trained and aware of family violence issues. I wanted our program of help to be all encompassing.

The Bible is clear: violent husbands are wicked men. Peter writes: (1 Peter 3:7-12) “Husbands, be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Sources:
Donna Bowen and Prof. Michael Horsburgh’s report
The NSW Domestic Violence Committee 1991
National Committee on Violence Against Women 1991
The SAAP Review, ‘Homes Away From Home’ 1987
“Family Matters” AIFS May 1993, Issue No. 34
“A Woman And Domestic Violence”. Anglican Synod, 1987
The National Domestic Violence Education Campaign 1989
The National Domestic Violence Training Forum 1990
“Roslyn’s Story” – a Survivor’s Perspective
Cass, Bettina. The Housing Needs of Women and Children Canberra: [Australian Govt. Pub. Service], 1991. Discussion paper (Australia. National Housing Strategy)
“Family Violence” Federation Press, Sydney, 1991

Rev the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC

Alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. God was traditionally given the title of being the first and the last, a title abbreviated by the use of A, and O. In Hebrew (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) He was called ‘the first and the last’. Hebrew scholars explained that this came from the word for “truth” whose three Hebrew consonants are the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet! They took the truth of God to be symbolised in His being beyond all time. In the New Testament the word omega is used in three places, all in John’s Revelation (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Here the term is used twice of God and on the other occasion is given completely to Jesus, signifying that He shares God’s divine nature.

The use of the term omega meant that Jesus was the complete expression of God. He was “the fullness of the blessing of the gospel” (Rom. 15:29). Christ was beyond time and place, beyond history, and beyond humanity’s concepts. Christ is the cosmic reality, the source of creation and its ultimate goal. Although John (1:3) expressed this in part, it was Paul whose keen philosophical mind made clear this reality (Col. 1:15-20). He saw Christ as the source and the goal of creation. Christ was the cohesive force in the universe. “From Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). In Him the whole universe coheres (Col. 1:17).

FOR TODAY

In the centre of the great stained glass window in the Box Hill, Victoria Church of Christ is a picture of an open Bible with the letters A, and O. As a young child I had many speculations during long sermons over these letters stood for!

It was impossible to talk of omega without referring to Teilhard de Chardin – the magnificent heretic or far-seeing prophet of our time. This Jesuit scientist, theologian and philosopher had a commitment to Christ that had a cosmic scope. He saw the end point of the processes of evolution coming into focus at what he called the omega point. This is where the whole creation meets and is renewed in the reigning lord of history. Christ is both the end of creation and its sustaining life force.

We are all aware of centrifugal force, that force on a spinning disc which moves loose objects outwards. In a whirling world like ours things tend to fly apart. There are few forces that bring things together and hold them in cohesion. Christ is a centripetal force; in Him things come together and hold fast.

The New Testament Christians used the philosophical terms of their day to express the theological truth without fears that the contemporary philosophy would contaminate the Christian truth. Worlds like omega, logos and Eikon were used in the Christian apologetic. We ought to have Christian philosophers today who are prepared to make a defence for the hope that is within them by filling the current philosophies with Christian content. The trouble is when they do, as with Teilhard, the Church becomes frightened and their works are banned. Christians of all people should never fear searching for ultimate truth.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

The Messiah was to be God’s divinely appointed deliverer and ruler of Israel. Christians saw Jesus as the Messiah, or Christ, as it is translated in the Greek. There is only one reference in the Old Testament to the word Messiah as such (Dan. 9:25-26). He was to be the prince who would come as Israel’s deliverer. The term in Hebrew meant “the anointed one”, and is a fulfilment of the concept of anointing the king as God’s representative (1 Sam. 24:4-6). One important passage is 2 Sam. 7:12-13 where the kingdom of David is promised as an eternal kingdom. This became the basis of the eternal messianic hope. The Old Testament generally regarded the kingdom in terms of land around Palestine and the Messiah as their national leader.

The word is twice found in the New Testament. Once Andrew told his brother Peter that he had found the Messiah, and he brought Peter to Jesus (John 1:41). The other occasion is when the woman of Samaria referred to the coming of the Messiah without any reference to its fulfilment in Jesus (John 4:26).

The New Testament Church took the messianic passages and applied them to Jesus. They saw Him fulfilling such expectations. He would be the righteous judge vindicating the meek and establishing peace (Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9). He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). After His coming the Jewish exiles would return to their home and a new age (Jer. 23:7-8). His kingdom would be unshakeable (Ps. 2). He would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110) and would judge among the nations (Matt. 22:42).

The Messiah was not identified with the Son of Man (Dan. 7) but Christians saw Jesus as both. After the resurrection Jesus explained His messiahship (Lk. 24:26-7). Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 16:16) became the fundamental plank in the Christian platform.

FOR TODAY

Jesus stressed secrecy concerning His own messiahship (Matt. 16:20) because of the political implications of His day. Because of the political implications of our day we should keep the secret no longer! “Jesus is the Christ” must be proclaimed in placard and word, but more importantly, in life, in the political halls of Canberra and of every capital city throughout the world.

Among many Jewish people there is a renewed interest in the coming Messiah. For the best part of 3000 years the Passover has required an empty chair to be ready for Him. In recent months there has been a strong “Jews for Jesus” movement in many western countries. They have taken full-page advertisements in national newspapers containing their own photographs and openly witnessing that they believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Among Jewish students in Universities there is a great deal of tension at this point between the evangelism of Hebrew Christians and the resistance of orthodox Jews who regards the messianic witness as an anti-Semitic attack. Christians must both love our Jewish friends and seek to reveal to them that the one crucified in Jerusalem is also their long-awaited Messiah.

It is no coincidence that Handel chose to call his Oratorio “The Messiah”. He wrote it while paralysed down one side from a stroke. To a stricken, paralysed man no greater thought could fill his mind than to stand and shout the news that Jesus was the Messiah.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

Jesus’ claim, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything, to the very end of the age” (Matt 28:18-20), shatters the attitude that all religions are true. Jesus claims the authority of being the only way to God. This claim is exclusive to Christianity. Salvation is obtained only by putting one’s trust in this Jesus.

Christians come to Easter with high expectations. We sorrow with Christ as we watch with Him during His passion. We share in the Holy Communion of Maundy Thursday. We consider His death upon the Cross and burial in the tomb. But then, with the first rays of light we rejoice that “He is risen! He is risen indeed!”

When we meet with people of other religions or with none, we witness to our faith in the Risen Lord. We witness with intellectual vigour, are willing to use Scripture and speak of Jesus Christ as our Friend. Christianity is not a way of life, not Western culture, not conformity to a standard of living.

Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Jesus is the only way to God. Thomas asked Jesus: (John 14:5) “How can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Jesus actually claimed to be the answer to human problems. Jesus’ solution is not a recipe but a relationship with Him. Jesus, the unique Son, is the sole means of access to the Father. As John said John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Jesus is the only revelation of God in human form.

Hence salvation focuses on what God has done in Christ to deliver human beings from the powers of death, sin, and hell. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for you. No other religion can point to a moment in history and say – this is what God has done for you! Religion is our attempt to find God. Christianity is God’s attempt to find us. That is why we must witness to the events of Holy week, His death and resurrection. Jesus is unique. Rejoice!

Rev the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC

Last January, we wrote a factual article in this pages, in part to counter fanatical Christians who are writing racist lies saying that Muslims were to blame for killing Christians. But many of these bigots did not want to hear the truth, and wrote further lies to discredit the author. Here is the original article so you can judge for yourself, and the official reply from the Australian High Commission.

Who is to blame for Nigeria’s atrocities?

Every now and again we are reminded of the continuing Christian/Muslim conflicts in the Sudan, in Nigeria, and in the Middle East. Most recently blood was shed in Jos, Nigeria, an area close by a seminary for training pastors I have supported.

Most reports of these violent conflicts have blamed the jihadists. The anti-Muslim groups in Australia always describe atrocities in such a manner. But reliable eyewitnesses are now saying that as people lost loved ones and began to retaliate, mistrust widened between the Christian and Muslim communities. Many Christian young people have taken up their machetes to gain revenge.

The majority of people in Jos, Muslim and Christian alike, live in peace and want to continue to live that way. In some areas of Nigeria the two religious groups have co-existed for decades. But the Government media is largely Muslim and their reports are often suspect. At least Christians make that complaint.

The fact is that both churches and mosques had been burned in the conflicts and young men on both sides have been murdered. Sometimes areas are reported as “Muslim” areas, but that is only because all Christians have been driven out. This is the same in the West Bank of Israel where Palestinian Christians have been driven out by Israeli settlers and the areas designated as “Jewish”. During the “Troubles” in Ireland both Catholic and Protestant Christians were involved in killing each other.

Last Sunday a Catholic Church was attacked and burned at a time when attackers could expect worshipers to be gathered. A Church of Christ in Northern Nigeria church was also burned that day. It would not be unlikely that other church burnings and retaliatory mosque burnings occurred during that time.

After Sunday’s violence, many parts of Jos experienced calm on Monday morning, with Muslims and Christians talking with each other like normal in some markets. Nevertheless, killings were occurring, and automatic weapons fire was being heard.

Violence reportedly increased on Tuesday, as word spread about the real numbers killed on Sunday. A seminarian from an evangelical seminary in Jos had been en route to his theological field assignment when Muslim rioters caught him and beat him to death; his body was brought in to the hospital while a group of seminarians was waiting for treatment.

Craig S. Keener, Professor of New Testament at Eastern University’s Palmer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania USA, says we must try to understand the sudden violence experienced by our brothers and sisters in the Middle Belt of Nigeria and to avoid the simplistic blame game. In time of conflict, the first thing to suffer is truth.

Nigerians have a lot to learn from their brothers, the Imam and the Pastor. At a time when many in the world are wondering whether friendly relations are possible between those of Muslim and Christian background, Imam Muhammad Ashafa and Pastor James Wuye are living proof that they are.

In the 1990s, the two men led opposing, armed militias, dedicated to defending their respective communities. In pitched battles, Pastor James lost his hand and Imam Ashafa’s spiritual mentor and two close relatives were killed. Now the two men are co-directors of the Muslim-Christian Interfaith Mediation Centre in their city of Kaduna, Northern Nigeria, leading task-forces to resolve conflicts across the country.

The Australian High Commission in Nigeria replied that Christians were responsible for events leading up to it:

“Unfortunately, the violence in Jos is not restricted to this one incident but is instead a cycle of conflict – thought to have started in 2001 – that has its roots in ethnicity, poverty, rights to land and politics. This recent outbreak of violence appears to have been a reprisal attack by Fulani herdsmen/militia against a village of the ethnic group of Berom, in response to an equally violent and deplorable attack by Berom (Christian) villagers against Muslim-Hausa-Fulani villages in January 2010. Regrettably, on that occasion in January, there were similarly disturbing photographs of Muslim women and children who have been killed by Christians”. (Source: National Alliance of Christian Leaders).

Our article stands confirmed as accurate.

Rev the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC

The original article “Labour’s dirty political tricks” as published below was written by Hendrik Gout for the Independent Weekly on 26 March 2010.

Labor’s election fraud in South Australia last Saturday has broken state borders. An ALP apparatchik from Queensland is now proven to have had a hand in the scandal and there may have been other fly-ins from other states.

No longer confined to one renegade State branch of the Labor Party, it involved sanction by high authority and with a federal election this year, the fraud could taint Kevin Rudd as happened to John Howard for Liberal’s use of fake election material at the last federal election in the NSW seat of Lindsay.

One volunteer in the SA scandal has been exposed as Nino Lalic, a Queensland delegate to Young Labor’s national conference connected with the Queensland Public Sector Union. When he’s not volunteering to get involved in an electoral scam in Adelaide, he works in the office of the Queensland Minister for Disability Services, Annastacia Palaszczuk.

The gist of the story is this: Labor, down in the polls, staring at possible defeat. Every consecutive poll shows growing support for Liberal leader Isobel Redmond. Desperate, the ALP hatches a plan to use ALP members and volunteers covertly. They’re sent out in the disguise of volunteers of the Family First Party. Same colour clothes, same use of capital letters on the T-shirts… Put your Family First.

Then, on election day, these two-visaged volunteers distributed how-to-vote cards which looked like Family First’s and which said that to follow Family First, voters should put Labor above Liberal. That’s completely the opposite of how Family First wanted its preferences to go. “It’s a corruption of process,” said defeated Liberal candidate Joe Scalzi. Had Liberals won in marginal seats where such chicanery went on, there could now be a Liberal Premier. That likelihood – that Liberal would win in a fair and just election – is why Labor did what it did.

Family First is outraged but Labor doesn’t give a fig leaf, its nakedness exposed too late. The votes are in and Labor won government using fraud. And any party that defrauds its way into power cannot be trusted to exercise it.

Two polls, one taken by the Australian Christian lobby and one by Family Voice Australia, both ranked the Family First Party at the top of all major political parties for pursing a Christian practise in policies. One declared Family First gained “one hundred out of one hundred” and the other that Family First was the “most Christian of all political parties”.

They directed their examinations and questionnaires to all the major political parties (i.e. those which have multiple members of Parliament in multiple parliaments around Australia including Federal Parliament) Liberal, National, Labor, Greens, and Family First. These are the only major Parties. In South Australia the DLP was also included as it was contesting that election. The micro parties which have a member in one other Parliament, were not included. The Micro parties represented in one Parliament only are The Shooters and the CDP both in the NSW Legislative Council.

It came as no surprise to us, that among all major political parties, The Family First Party was recognised as “the most Christian Party”. We congratulate The Hon Rob Brokenshire on his re-election in SA. Rob stood for the Legislative Council and was easily re-elected. He is the former SA Minister of Police and like the FF Leader The Hon. Dennis Hood, is an extremely committed Christian. Click here for the survey.

How should Christians who have a passion for evangelization relate to Islam? For North Americans, the question took on new urgency in the wake of September 11. But Christians in Muslim-majority societies have dealt with the question far longer. Growing up Christian in Syria gave Chawkat Moucarry many opportunities to interact with Muslims and learn about Islam. In this installment of the Global Conversation, World Vision International’s director of interfaith relations describes his commitment to both dialogue and mission.

I have never understood why some people look at dialogue and mission in either-or terms. In my experience, these words belong so much to each other that they should never be divorced. Evangelical Christians (whose theology I share) have shown an unwarranted suspicion of dialogue, simply because some have used it as a substitute for mission. Not only are the two words compatible, but they must shape each other.

I have always believed in God and Jesus Christ. Growing up in a Muslim-majority society, I knew as a child that I was different, and I gradually realized that this difference implied that I had something precious to share with my Muslim friends.

I was born into a Catholic home and was an altar boy in my early teens. I attended a missionary primary school, which gave me my first opportunity to discuss religion with my Muslim peers. However, my significant conversations about Christianity and Islam started after I moved to a government secondary school, where the majority of pupils were from working-class families. I was surprised to realize that many Muslim schoolmates were very interested to know more about Christianity and Christians. And I wanted to better understand Islam. A unique opportunity presented itself when the teacher of Islamic religious education granted me permission to attend his class. I was the only Christian there. He regularly asked me to give my views as a Christian on certain topics. These discussions extended outside the classroom.

In Paris, after I graduated in Christian theology, I felt as an Arab Christian a compelling need to relate my faith to Islam. That required me to study it. The need was reinforced after I started working for the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students among Arab and Muslim students. Sometimes they would ask me challenging questions that I had not seriously considered as a theological student. Hence, it wasn’t difficult for me to find research topics for my Islamic Studies dissertations at the Sorbonne.

For my first degree, I looked into the Islamic charge against the reliability of the Bible, and in my Ph.D. dissertation, I examined Islamic and Christian teachings on forgiveness. Needless to say, studying Islam unavoidably meant re-examining my major Christian beliefs, which I had often taken for granted. My work with students included setting up book tables at university campuses and leading Bible study groups, as well as speaking in public debates in France and abroad on Christianity and Islam.

For 12 years I worked for All Nations Christian College, a mission-oriented Bible college in Ware, England. I was in charge of its Islamic course, to which I invited a Muslim lecturer to contribute each year. His or her talks were one of the high spots of the course, as they provided an opportunity for a genuine and often animated interaction between students, the speaker, and me.

For three years now I have been working for World Vision, whose mission statement echoes the “mission statement” Jesus proclaimed at the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:18-19). The Christian aid organization operates in 20 Muslim-majority countries, with Muslims composing most of the staff in places like Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Somalia. My work includes providing orientation on Christianity and Islam to all our staff. It has been fascinating to learn from each other about our respective faiths—and often about our own. Without ignoring the distinctive beliefs of each tradition, knowing our common ground enhances our work for the common good of the communities we serve.

What is dialogue?

I take dialogue to mean a deliberate effort to engage genuinely and respectfully with each other; a willingness to listen and understand; a readiness to learn and be challenged. It is also a desire to relate to, communicate with, and be understood by one another. Christian-Muslim dialogue focuses on the two faiths and their implications for individuals and communities in this life and the next.

For many centuries, Christians in the Western world have either ignored or confronted the Muslim world. Ignoring Muslims is no longer an option in our “global village,” where Muslims and Christians live next to each other. Some Christians relate to Muslims in a confrontational way. They consider polemics a perfectly legitimate way to approach Islam. Polemics, as its derivation from the Greek (“of war”) suggests, is about waging a war of words against Muslims by attacking their religion. This approach is counterproductive. It usually provokes a defensive response—Muslims becoming more radical in their beliefs—and often an offensive reaction too—Muslims attacking Christianity even more vehemently. A polemical engagement with Islam produces more heat than light, and is incompatible with “the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15), which is about reconciliation, love, and forgiveness.

Christian-Muslim dialogue often takes the form of apologetics for at least two reasons. First, Christianity and Islam make conflicting truth claims about God’s revelation, which for Christians reached its climax with the coming of Jesus Christ, and for Muslims with the disclosure of the Qur’an. Second, Islam acknowledges Christianity and Judaism as God-given religions. At the same time, it rejects the core of the gospel (the divinity of Christ and his crucifixion and resurrection). Christian apologetics is about giving a defense of the faith to those who criticize it (1 Pet. 3:15). This, however, should be done with “gentleness and respect” for critics. Even in a heated debate, the Christian apologist must refrain from polemics, personal attacks, and derisive or hostile arguments about Muslims and their religion.

Welcome and witness.

We often think of dialogue as verbal engagement, but this is a very narrow view. Dialogue is first of all about an open attitude toward others, a disposition that reaches out and welcomes people who are different or even antagonistic. Dialogue is a way of life. Understood this way, Christian-Muslim dialogue is an encounter at three distinct and interrelated levels. Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26) is paradigmatic.

First, Christians and Muslims meet each other as human beings. They have much in common—physical and emotional needs, human and spiritual aspirations, joys and sorrows, hopes and struggles.

Second, they meet as monotheistic believers who share many beliefs (for example, creation, human stewardship, divine guidance, sin, forgiveness, final judgment) and ethical values (for example, moral standards, the sacredness of human life, sexual fidelity, a commitment to the poor), even though the way they think of these is not exactly the same.

Finally, Christians and Muslims claim to be God’s witnesses on earth. Christians and Muslims have huge misunderstandings about each other’s faith. Removing the misunderstandings is an integral part of dialogue. As we explain our faiths to one another, each community bears witness to the Creator according to its own perspective.

We can measure a fruitful dialogue by its outcomes. It should result in a better understanding of each other’s faith and of one’s own. Dialogue should lead to better relationships between the two communities and strengthen their social commitments.

Dialogue is also an excellent school for tolerance. It helps us overcome our ignorance, our prejudice, our self-centeredness, our fanaticism, and our spiritual pride.

Is conversion a legitimate goal in dialogue? Yes. It is perfectly legitimate for believers who take seriously the exclusive claims of their religion to try to persuade others of the truth they proclaim. There is nothing wrong with hoping and even expecting that some people, having carefully examined these claims, will make a life-changing decision as a result of transparent and free dialogue. Unless we accept conversion as a possible outcome for dialogue, our claim to be tolerant remains unproven.

Relating to Muslims Christ’s way.

Muslims find a lot in their scriptures about Christianity and Christians. Because Islam is a post-Christian religion, Christians do not find anything about Islam in the Bible. However, Jesus gave us a clear and helpful command about how to relate to people in general: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12). How do we want Muslims to relate to us and to our faith? I would like to highlight some implications of the Golden Rule for Christians who want to engage missiologically with Islam and Muslims.

First, as an expression of loving our neighbors, we must show respect to Muslims and to the heart of their identity—their prophet, their religion, and their scriptures. This attitude requires us to avoid catch questions, derogatory comments, and inflammatory language. True, some Muslim polemicists and extremists do not comply with the Qur’anic recommendation to argue with Jews and Christians “in the best possible way” (Qur’an 29:46). But this is no excuse for Christians to indulge in vitriolic criticisms of Islam.

This does not mean abstaining from criticisms of Islam. But when we have critical comments to make, we need to put them in the least offensive language and to ensure as far as we can that they are substantiated. Jesus enjoins his disciples not to be naive and to look critically at self-proclaimed prophets (Matt. 7:15-20); in the same breath, he commands them to take a long, critical look at themselves (Matt. 7:1-5, 21-23).

Second, we should do our best to be fair. This means, for instance, keeping a balance between highlighting similarities and pointing out differences when comparing Christianity and Islam. Focusing on either will give a distorted image of Islam. Fairness also requires comparing like with like—for instance, not comparing moderate Christians with extremist Muslims, ideal Christianity with popular Islam, beautiful texts in the Bible with problematic passages in the Qur’an, and so on. Some Christians are often tempted to compare Islamic teaching with the New Testament, which is understandable. However, Christians do not disown the Old Testament, and it would be unfair to ignore the Old Testament when looking at issues such as holy war, polygamy, the penal code, prophethood, and theocracy.

Finally, we need to study Islam and befriend Muslims. It is legitimate, in fact necessary, for Christians to use Islamic material in their interactions with Islam, but it is critically important that we adopt a humble attitude. We need to acknowledge that the Muslim community is the custodian of its own tradition. Its members are the authoritative interpreters of their scriptures, not us. Some approaches tend to Christianize Islam, others to demonize it. Neither does justice to Islamic teaching, which should be considered on its own merits.

A Christian perspective on Islam ought to be at the same time incarnational, sympathetic, and critical. It should be concerned more with Muslim people than with Islam. Muslims are first and foremost human beings, made in God’s image and loved by God as much as we are. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are under a double obligation to love our Muslim neighbors as ourselves and to share the Good News with them. Not only do the two commands go hand in hand, the second is best carried out as an expression of the first. Dialogue is indeed the privileged way of “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) to Muslims and members of other religious communities.

By: Chawkat Moucarry, Director of Interfaith Relations, World Vision International.

Scripture: Genesis 37:1-11

I am Trustee of Mangrove Mountain Retreat, a 100-hectare site in a National Park on the Central Coast. It has wonderful facilities for accommodating about 150 people at any one time with great dining room, swimming pool, recreational facilities, kitchens and bedroom facilities. Over the past sixteen years, with help from many donors, community service clubs and especially Wesley Mission, we have spent about $3 million on upgrading facilities. Now we are about to add a $1+million auditorium.

Recently, the Trustees under chairman Rod Blackmore, A.M., the former Chief Magistrate of the Children’s Court, approved “Youth Insearch” as the agency to take over the administration of Mangrove Mountain Retreat. I first met the founder, a former teacher, youth worker, and training & development manager, Ron Barr in 1985. He had recently founded “Youth Insearch” and he was asking Sydney Rotary Club for support.

This is a program for teenagers who are in trouble with family and the community. Of the 30,000 children who have been through the program, he claims an 80% “turnaround” rate. The organisation is funded largely through public donations and through groups like Rotary and Lions Clubs.

Of the children who attended Insearch camps, it is estimated that 45-50% had been sexually assaulted, 90% had experimented with drugs, 50% had contemplated suicide, 25% had attempted suicide, and 60% came from dysfunctional homes. 35% had been sexually abused by the age of 16; 85% of the perpetrators were family members, family friends or someone “close and trusted”.

“Youth Insearch” is really helping these kids. The significant factor was the abnormally high percentage of those children who came from blended families and stepfamilies. Stepfamilies, blended families, and those living with partners with children are in some ways like first-time-round families. They are also, in many other ways, vastly different. Most people who become a part of a stepfamily are unprepared for the differences.

These differences can include:

Stepfamilies are more complex. There are many more family relationships in stepfamilies. There are likely to be grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and a parent living outside the family with no links with other members of the stepfamily.

Emotional upheavals. Family members may have experienced distress from the break-up of the previous marriage or relationship. Some may still be grieving for the family they have lost.

Huge changes. All members of the stepfamily, including those living outside the family, must cope with the change and make a number of adjustments.

More parents. There are more parent figures in a stepfamily and the parenting may be shared by someone outside the family.

Different likes and dislikes. There is no common history, and different family members may have different ideas about how things are done.

Whether the previous relationship ended through death, separation or divorce, all members need to adjust to your new relationship.

There are, according to “Relationships Australia” many myths about Stepfamilies:

Myth 1: “People quickly adjust to being part of a stepfamily”.
There is no such thing as an instant adjustment. It will take time and effort for everyone to feel comfortable in the new family. Unfortunately some children may never feel comfortable.

Myth 2: “Loving and caring will develop instantly”.

The idea that the new step-parent and step-children will instantly love each other and recognise each other’s strengths is unlikely to happen. Love cannot be forced upon each other and the relationship may take time to develop.

Myth 3: “Working hard prevents the development of the ‘wicked’ step-parent image”.

Step-parents come into families and frequently work too hard to make everyone in the household happy, and to avoid being seen as the horrible stepmother or stepfather. Unfortunately, this can create tension rather than harmony.

Myth 4: “Anything negative that happens is a result of being in a stepfamily”.

Frequently children and adults blame their problems on the fact that they are living in a stepfamily. All families have difficulties, not just stepfamilies.

Myth 5: “Stepfamilies are the same as first-time-round families”.

The expectation for the new family to appear like a first-time-round family with two natural parents and their children living in one household together, can cause pain for everyone. It leads to a denial of the existence of other parents and relatives. It is important to accept that the stepfamily will never be the same as the first-time-round family and to see the benefits of being in a stepfamily.

“Relationships Australia” says that contrary to their traditional negative image, stepfamilies can actually provide a rich and rewarding family environment for the adults and children involved.

One reason is because for second marriages couples are often much more aware of the pitfalls possible in trying to make a relationship work and are doubly committed to things working out this time.

Remarried couples and stepfamilies have a number of difficulties to overcome for the adults and the children.

Statistically, many of these attempts fail despite everyone’s hard work and good intentions. Some people have not yet gotten over the pain of their first failed marriage, and therefore are not really emotionally free to concentrate on a new marriage fully.

Studies suggest waiting at least two years after the end of the first relationship to enter into a new one, although people rarely follow experts’ advice in such matters of the heart. And because people are not all the same some people should wait much longer than that, as it will take them longer to fully recover from their failed marriage.

Being alone again after having been married is very difficult, on a number of levels. It is even harder when there are children involved. There is the adult loneliness with the lack of intimacy and companionship, lone decision-making, frequently lone responsibility for the children, or for the non-custodial parent the yearning to have the children around them.

Being in love is not enough to build a firm foundation for a new marriage. Living together, although done quite frequently in this era, is not a very good option because the pressures and commitments of marriage are completely different and it models less than ideal moral behaviour to the children which can cause confusion, loss of respect for the parents, or other problems. For more on this topic see: http://www.relationships.com.au/advice/relationship-enrichment/second-chances

Relationships Australia’s “Relationships Indicators Survey 2008” found a number of intriguing patterns, such as: Nearly nine in ten respondents said the main reason people don’t get married, is because of a bad previous experience. Eight in ten indicated that people don’t get married because of reasons to do with commitment – either an avoidance of it or a belief that strong commitment does not need marriage. Both these responses were higher amongst females than males.

Three quarters agreed that people don’t get married because of fear of making a mistake, a desire for a singles lifestyle or due to a fear of divorce. Females were more likely to fear making a mistake than males.

Approximately half felt that people don’t get married because it will interfere with work and career (55%) or because of a desire for multiple relationships (48%). This was particularly the case for those who had never married (65%).

In addition, both these reasons were significantly higher amongst males than females with a difference of 9% and 8% respectively. Just under half of all respondents (47%) agreed that a desire for travel was a reason people don’t get married.

This question was previously included in the 2006 survey, and each response category increased significantly in 2008. For more about hose surveys please visit: http://www.relationships.com.au/resources/pdfs/reports-submissions/ra-rel-ind-survey-2008-report.pdf

The worst part of all of this is that children frequently suffer from the tensions the parents face that are often taken out on the children.

The problem of child abuse is an overwhelming one. The latest statistics (for 2009) revealed that more than 34,000 children were taken out of abusive homes by the Department of Community Service because of abuse, or evidence that abuse was most likely. (SMH 21/01/2010)

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found more than 34,000 children were taken from their parents and placed in out-of-home care in 2008-09, an increase of 9 per cent on the year before.

The Minister for Community Services, Jenny Macklin, said the Government was developing national standards for child protection. “Child protection systems vary markedly across the country, with each state and territory having its own child protection policy, standards and legislation. We need national standards of care so children who cannot live with their families can grow up in a safe, secure environment. National standards will provide a benchmark for the care of these children no matter where in Australia they live.”

In NSW the most common form of abuse was emotional. In a third of cases, police informed welfare agencies. Hospital staff and teachers were the next most likely to report abuse. Across the country, girls were the most likely victims of sexual abuse. Boys were more commonly subjected to physical abuse. Children younger than 10 were the subjects of two-thirds of abuse cases.

‘’Lone parents are more likely to have low incomes and be financially stressed and suffer from social isolation,’’ the report said. Single-mother families were also over-represented in the Australian population,” it said.

Out-of home care involves separating the abused child from their parent and placing them with relatives, foster carers, in group homes or letting them live alone.

The incidence of child abuse correlates with the high incidence of families having children the second-time round. This is a shorthand way of speaking of blended families, stepfamilies and de facto families where the children belonged to at least one other parent not in the present relationship.

Frequently children born into a second or third marriage may bring a lot of joy to the parents as a seal of their love together. More often than not, it can bring tension and poor relationships.

‘Blended’ families refer to the parents and children who, due to remarriage, now belong to a new family setting. Second marriages may bring together his children and her children and then their children.

Frequently the stepchildren, especially younger teenagers, have difficulty adjusting to the new parent and many leave home. Most of the “Streetkids” social welfare agencies work with are reported as being drop-outs from blended marriages. Others who have children the second time round are those who have children in older age following perhaps, the death of an earlier partner or divorce after many years of marriage. We all know older men in their sixties who have married younger women and are fathers at the same time as their previous children are having children of their own.

Then I have known several women who have fostered their own teenage son or daughter’s unwanted child, thereby starting a new family of her own perhaps fifteen years after her own child-bearing ceased. I have known Grandparents who take over caring for their grandchildren when the parents have been killed.

Jacob had twelve sons by four women, six by his first wife, then four by two female servants of his wife and then in old age he married Rachel and had two sons, Joseph around whom much of the book of Genesis revolves, and later Benjamin.

He loved dearly his second wife who was much younger than himself, and when she produced her first son, Joseph, the silly old man thought he was Super stud! Jacob “loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age; and he made a richly ornamented robe for him. 4 When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him.” (Gen 37:3-4).

The teenager Joseph paraded before his older stepbrothers and told them of his ascendancy over them through dreams he had. No wonder the older stepbrothers wanted to get rid of him. But who was at fault? His dreams were nothing but the ideas planted by his silly old father, who reinforced his preference by making Joseph an amazing technicolour dream-coat! His coat was the symbol of his preferential treatment by his father. Sibling rivalry is often caused by foolish parents!

How many times has a parent come into a ready-made family, taking the children of the former marriage, only to hear the words: “You’re not my REAL Mum! You can’t tell me what to do!” The door slams and another young teenager, who centuries ago ran away to sea, runs away to Kings Cross, as the words pierce his new step-mother’s heart. Such cries echo in thousands of homes, splintering relationships and shattering dreams of blissful family life.

About one in every five children lives in a reconstituted or “blended” family. If the trend continues to the year 2020, families with stepchildren will outnumber families raising their own children. As in nearly all families, the bulk of child-rearing falls upon the stepmother, who, ever since the fairytale “Cinderella” has been given the title “wicked”.

The role of being a step-parent is draining and demanding. As one said, “Being a step-mum is harder than biological parenting, and the delights are fewer.” With so many adults caring for children the second time round, their own or those they have inherited, how does a parent cope? Here are a bunch of suggestions.

1. Keep a close relationship with your spouse

Marriage and children arrive at the same time for a blended family. But the marriage is still the primary relationship and therefore must be nurtured. The failure rate for second/third marriages tops the divorce rate for first marriages. Often, the strain of raising children is too much for a remarried couple.

“It was his children, not my husband that I wanted to divorce,” said one step-mum. “They drove a wedge between us and nearly destroyed our marriage and each other.” So the parent the second time round, must work to build a good relationship with their spouse. Seek counselling, if necessary, to build skills in communicating your feelings. Clarify and deal with issues before they become problems. Make decisions together.

Often a child is jealous of the love of their natural parent being expressed to a new parent. Children can feel responsible for the other parent’s absence.

2. Lower your expectations

Your dreams of “one big happy family” often set you up for a big fall, resulting in bitterness, guilt and jealousy. It takes a few years for a stepfamily to begin to be a family. Be patient and realise it may never fully come. But as respect for you grows, so will your authority.

3. Agree on a plan of discipline

With your mate, develop a plan, and then present a united front to the children. At least initially, the major part of discipline should be administered by the natural parent, who must clarify to the children that the step-parent possesses authority to discipline in his or her absence.

After divorce, children suffer by bouncing between households where standards of behaviour differ. When co-parenting with the “ex”, try hard to maintain consistency and avoid an emotional tug-of-war. Discipline in a blended family includes combating the universal phenomenon: the “Poor Little Thing” syndrome. This occurs when children are not held accountable for their behaviour in an attempt to “make up for” the painful realities of separation. Many people feel it is hard to discipline a child who has been through so much. If left unchecked, such an attitude guarantees the creation of a spoiled brat.

4. Accept your children and your situation

One difficulty in step-parenting is accepting a child’s looks, personality, habits, manners, behaviour, style of dress, speech, choice of friends and feelings – all of which had no contribution from you. You might not even like these children, who may resent and reject you. But you have accepted some degree of responsibility for their care.

Forget about “getting married and living happily ever after.” No family does. Time spent wishing for a “normal” situation is wasted. You have married into this family, so accept it as it is and make the best of it. Good omelettes can still be made with broken eggs!

5. Let Christian love direct your behaviour

An intense feeling of love for stepchildren may never come. That is okay. Keeping a child’s best interest at heart in loving ways represents the best of parenting. If you act out of Christian love – which means showing the upmost care for each child – you will do justly towards the child, and perhaps encourage a growth in love between you. But in any case, check your behaviour by the standard of Christian love.

Jesus said, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me” (Matthew 18:5). When loving is hard, treat the child as though Jesus is asking you to love this child for Him. “I’ll do this for you, Lord” has gotten many a step-parent over a rough spot.

6. Practice forgiveness

You will have to learn to forgive your stepchildren, your husband, the other influential adults in your blended family, any interfering in-laws, those who gossip about and criticise you, and a host of others.

Realise that all the responsibility for the success of your blended family does not rest on you alone. Every problem your stepchild faces does not stem from the fact that he is a stepchild. Take neither all the credit nor all the blame.

One of the worst ways we have of handling our guilt relates to our children. We try to compensate to them for what we subconsciously feel we have done by depriving them of their other parent, even if it was by death or accident. We try to buy their favour by our favours. Many fathers who have access visiting with his children lavish gifts and good times upon them. Children are quick to recognise a good thing and will take advantage of such indulgences. What is the father actually doing? He’s trying to assuage his own guilt over the failure of the marriage.

The mother, who is quite often given custody of the children, does not have the same financial resources to do the same, and anyhow knows that disciplined living is best for the child, and so is seen as a mean mother.

Children can become adept at pitting one parent against the other. The long-term effects can be devastating for all concerned. Particularly when remarriage occurs, the guilt level can rise alarmingly fast. You have to learn to forgive others: the interference of the separated parent, the sniping remarks of in-laws, and the subtle guilt that is undeserved and most of all, you have to seek God’s forgiveness of yourself.

The former partner has insidious ways of getting back at the ex-spouse through their children. By spoiling vacations and access visits; by failing to give the child a message from the other parent; saying disparaging things about the ex and the ex’s family; using the children as carrier pigeons insisting that they relate what is going on in the other parent’s new marriage and rehashing what contributed to the marital failure in the presence of the child. We all have much to forgive. (I found many insights in “To Love Again” Helen Kooiman Hosier. Abingdon Press, 1985).

7. Take time for yourself

The pressing needs of a blended family can sap you physically, emotionally and spiritually. Refresh yourself in time alone with God, with special friends and with a hobby or sport you enjoy. Increase your self-esteem, take a class, read all the books by a favourite author, volunteer at a hospital or start a stamp collection. Choose a relaxing activity that will reduce stress in your life. Balance is your goal.

You will need support, someone in whom you can confide, someone who will listen non-judgmentally and accept you unconditionally. Step-parenting can be a lonely job. A support group will help fulfil Paul’s advice (Gal 6:2) “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ.”

One Australian myth makes it harder for Australians to be nurturing parents. Our belief in our self-sufficiency started with those bush pioneers who came to the Great South Land, cut off from relatives and friends. The settlers moved out to set up farms in the bush, coping on their own became a way of life. This attitude of self-sufficiency is now inbred within us.

But there is great danger here when we allow pride to say, “I don’t need anyone else – and I certainly don’t need God.” Many Australian parents fall into that trap, especially men. We believe that if we let others see what we are really like, they will reject us and we will be destroyed. It is as if we put on armour to protect ourselves. We think that everyone else has it together, so we go around pretending we are strong and capable even when our insides are screaming for help.

We assume there is no one to help when it all gets too much. No other society in history has asked this of its families; but we swallow this myth. We stiffen in our pride and self-sufficiency, not ready to admit to anyone that our family is having a rough time. To seek counselling or to go to parenting courses is seen by some as a sign of weakness and an admission of failure.

To be nurturing parents, we need each other’s help. Once we stop thinking that OURS is the only family with problems, we might be game enough to admit it to others. (“What About The Children? An inside look at family relationships” Betty-Rachael Hampton. Homebush NSW. ANZEA, 1993).

8. Build relationships with other believers

Read your Bible, pray, and worship with other Christians. God understands all your feelings, triumphs and defeats. He guides you over those rocky spots. And He keeps your secrets. Involvement with other believers helps in a practical way. If you are part of a loving Christian community, helping to meet the needs of others, it will be more natural to take responsibility for the nurturing and care of children other than your own. (“Growing A Healthy Home”. Focus on the Family. Mike Yorkey, Ed. Word Publishing, 1991).

Being a parent the second time round requires special sense and a lot of grace. You require resources other than your own. Nowhere else can you find strength to cope than from the presence of God. God brought forth a Son, Jesus Christ, then eventually by faith in Him, we become children of God. God can become your Father too by your faith. The God of the second time round is able to help you in your greatest of all challenges.

Rev the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC

Scripture: Matthew 6:19-24

More families founder on the rocks of poor money management than any other single issue. The inability of people to control their spending, earn enough to live as they desire, control the debts they have accepted and handle credit that is offered to them, causes more conflict between parents, and between parents and children than any other issue.

Other issues can be used to fight this battle. Sometimes conflict that is started over financial matters is fought in bed with sexual relationships being used as weapons. Sometimes the weapons are irrational behaviour or the threat to leave the home. But many families founder on their inability to manage money in their marriage. [See Marriage Works. April 2006. Dealing with Money Related Tension]

Over the past five years, I have introduced a number of excellent, practical articles on money management for families in the magazine my wife and I own, “Marriage Works”. We have indicated where online you can find those articles in this study.

Very little is done to teach us how to manage money in a marriage. In 1978, when I drew up my list of 150 ideas I would like to develop when I came to Sydney, included were new concepts people in Sydney had not ever considered, including equity funded retirement villages, the development of a national television and radio programs, and the establishment of a financial counselling service that I proposed calling “Debtline”.

One of the first things that the manager did when we appointed her to develop the service was to change its name to Credit Line, a much more user-friendly term. Eventually Credit Line has become the means of helping tens of thousands of families stay together, keep their homes, and work through the maze of debt. Founding that financial counselling service has been one of my proudest achievements.

Families rich and poor need to be taught money management. Even wealthy families. You can be an honest, intelligent, wealthy young person with good business sense and even a Harvard MBA and still lose it all – just ask young Warwick Fairfax! Or lose a lot of it – ask Jamie Packer.

Poor families have even less opportunity to learn how to gain, use and control money, and so are particularly vulnerable. Poor families are not given credit, are never taught how to discipline their spending on credit cards, are encouraged to try quick fixes through gambling, and rarely have good educational opportunities. So even though it is harder for the poor to get money, it is easier for them to lose it.

[See Marriage Works April 2008. Eliminating Debt ]

David Claerbaut in his excellent 2005 book “Urban Ministry” (p.76), says “Those who have been raised in poverty have never had much money to be handled in the first place. Consequently such childhood socialisers as allowances, toy purchases, and school banking are non-existent, giving the people little or no training in money management. Adults do not have credit cards, chequebooks, tax accountants, and deductions on which they sharpen their fiscal acumen and pass it along to their youth. There are simply no models. In female-headed families, the oldest child is often saddled with the shopping. Because they have no knowledge of how to handle money shrewdly and have little cash to begin with, they are often victim of economic exploitation.”

I remember one family of five children including a baby with a hole in the heart. Father had been sick for three months. Their only debt to a finance company was $3,000, but with the sickness, a consolidating loan was taken out to cover the Finance Company, which increased the debt to $11,000 with not one cent more to them. A George Adams loan at 140% interest paid the finance company. A Walter Pugh loan charging 162.4% interest was used to pay the George Adams loan. Bankruptcy was real. Yet for ten years this family had stayed home. No car. No outings. It was 9 1/2 years since the parents had been out at night alone.

Credit Line continued to work with the family. For the first time they had a small balance in the Credit Union for Christmas. Then came the surprise of a weekend holiday without cost at Vision Valley. Some of my donor friends paid for that. The children were excited as they were driven to the Valley – “Look at the horses, there’s a cow, what’s that?” Sunday afternoon we collected the children: “We rode the horses and the canoes. We had scones and cream and chicken for dinner.” The parents were so relaxed and happy. “I haven’t cooked a meal for two days, I just can’t believe it’s happening!”

[See Marriage Works October 2008. Things to consider before buying a home ]

People need to be taught how to manage money in their marriage, and Christian people have a wonderful head start on everybody else. For the Christian faith puts money management high on the list of requirements for all believers. Family wisdom in handling money is essential. Jewish families are taught to read the book of Proverbs regularly which is packed with scores of examples of good tips on managing money.

A survey of 34,000 people by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, found that many people rely on their family for financial assistance. Professor Bettina Cass, said the survey refuted “alarmist suggestions that we are seeing the death of the family. This information makes it quite clear that families are very strong in Australian society.” What then should families learn about money, marriage and managing?

1. LEARN THAT MONEY MANAGEMENT IS A PART OF LIFE

Many people go along never anticipating that the time will come when their circumstances will change. That’s the shock that comes when a woman suddenly realises her husband is gone for good and she will just have to manage the children and the home on her own. That’s the stunning realisation that has come to many middle managers who have been secure in their jobs only to be made redundant at the time when their family expenses have been at their height. That’s the shock that comes when sickness suddenly cuts the family income by half. Mortgages still have to be paid. Food still costs money. Children still have to be supported.

Retrenchment from employment requires careful management of the family resources. A Life Line Phone In I once organized for retrenched workers revealed that all persons had commitments like mortgage repayments, credit cards, household debts, car repayments, etc.

A year later 60% of the callers still were not working; 12% were offered voluntary redundancy, 71% were retrenched involuntarily and 17% were forced to resign. 30% received no payout upon being sacked. 20% received less than $5000, and only 10% received a payout of over $50,000. Few could survive long unemployed with debt.

Since being retrenched only 18% had gained new full-time work. 60% were still without work one year later. Whereas the average income before being terminated was $34,500, their new jobs paid an average of $21,780. At this level house repayments were virtually impossible. If there were other payments of any kind, such as car repayments, credit card debt and store charge cards, these families were in severe trouble.

They were suddenly going to learn lessons about the accumulation of interest, the advisability of cutting up their cards, of starting a budget, of negotiating repayment levels with their bank, stores and credit providers, of repayment schedules and saving for anticipated expenditure. How sad that people should have to go through the pain of learning family money management at the very time when they can least afford it! The time to start learning is now!

[See Marriage Works Oct 2009. Finances in Tough Times ]

2. KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT MONEY

The Bible says much about how to handle money and possessions. The problem of money is summed up by Jesus: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matt 6:24). The word serve translates “to be a slave to”. It is not a question of advisability, “You should not serve both God and money.” That would be a priority choice. It is not a question of accountability, “You must not serve both God and money.” That would be a moral choice. Rather, it is a matter of impossibility, “You cannot serve both God and money.” There is no choice, we each can serve only one master: we are either slaves to God or slaves to money.

Why did Jesus say we cannot serve both? Solomon wisely said: “Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). Jesus knows the need for money we face. He knows the pressure we can be under to make money. He knows its allure would pull us away from God. That is why we must have a proper theology to guide our beliefs about how we are to gain, save, use and give our money and possessions. That’s why John Wesley taught about money constantly.

[See: Marriage Works July 2008. Finance – God’s Way or the World’s Way ]

3. ADOPT A SOUND THEOLOGY OF MONEY MANAGEMENT

There are many families who would not be interested in a theology of management of money. But could I suggest you just read on because you may have been influenced more than you think by one of the three theologies followed by Christians.

i.Poverty Theology is seen in a Christian disgusted with worldliness and money. He believes possessions are a curse and has a strong bias toward helping the poor. He has few resources to actually help with the solution and usually advocates left-wing political ideas, especially socialist views on the means of the making of money and the exchange of property. This theology of Christian socialism has influenced all communist, socialist and left-wing political parties, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

ii.Prosperity Theology is seen in many Pentecostal Christians who follow the teachings of Kenneth Copeland and others like him. The disciple of prosperity theology believes ‘you have not because you ask not’. They usually tithe and have experienced the material blessings available by tithing and because of their success with tithing are preoccupied with money. Others not experiencing God’s financial blessings are said to show lack of faith. Many disciples of prosperity theology live consumptive lifestyles and support right-wing politics.

iii.Stewardship Theology is seen in Christians who believe God owns and controls everything. Possessions are a privilege and not a right; the steward gives up his rights. He reads Scripture to say possessions are a trust given in varying proportions, depending upon the God-given abilities he has and his faithfulness and obedience in following Biblical principles. The steward believes prosperity results from faithfully administering his talents, as given by God. He is not busy in accumulating wealth or renouncing it, but with being wise in the conduct of his affairs. His goal is to be like the man described in Psalm 112: “Good will come to him who is generous and lends freely, who conducts his affairs with justice…who scatters abroad his gifts to the poor.” His politics are middle of the road.

The perspectives of Poverty and Prosperity theologies are rife with flaws. The Prosperity gospel claims you can give to get, that you can create a transaction on God in which He is obligated to bless you. This view disregards your motives, whether or not you are living in sin, and God’s plan for your life. Likewise Poverty theology is flawed. The person who thinks you must be poor to be humble is mistaken. He doesn’t understand God’s mandate to be industrious and use his talents, and has a view that says poverty is romantic and ethical.

Stewardship theology weaves the virtues of Prosperity and Poverty theology together with the balance of God’s Word about money and possessions. Being a steward is more of an attitude, a way of looking at life as a caretaker. It is an approach to our faith – it is looking out not only for our own interests but also for the interests of others. Poverty theology exaggerates the role of sacrificial work, while the Prosperity gospel overemphasises the pursuit of financial rewards. The steward leads a balanced life, enjoying God’s abundance while always serving others in love.

[See Marriage Works October 2006 The Fun of Budgeting (Part 1) and Marriage Works January 2007 The Fun of Budgeting (Part 2) ]

4. FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IN MANAGING MONEY

Jesus understood the seduction of things and the liberation that comes through the right management of the things we possess. Sixteen of his thirty-eight parables are concerned with how we manage our money and possessions. One in every ten verses in the gospels, 288 in all, deal directly with how we gain, save, use and give our possessions.

It is said that there are five hundred verses in the Bible on prayer and 500 verses about faith, but some 2,350 verses on how to handle money and possessions! The Bible tells us that money, marriage and managing is fundamental to life.

Without being caught in the deceitfulness of riches we can focus on generosity, knowing that Jesus gave all, even His very life. Through His example, we know liberality is a mark of largeness in living. A man reveals the condition of his heart by his attitude toward money. No wonder Jesus sat in temples watching people give their offerings. “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).

Christians who learn to tithe demonstrate good management principles. They know how to work out their income and expenditure and how to take a tenth of it to give to God’s work. Such budgeting is the beginning of control over expenditure and planning of income. A tithe is the money we give God before our offerings. The tithe is the “first fruit” of a person’s earnings or wealth, which always belongs to God (Exodus. 34:26). The tithe is the Lord’s (Leviticus 27:30) and if we do not give the tithe we rob God. Our offerings are on top of that.

The biggest problem with families who get into heavy debt is that they have no finance plan. We have to teach them to write down their income and opposite it all they require to live, together with a strategy for earning the income and a time plan for paying their expenditure regularly and proportionately. Christians who tithe have to do that first in order to work out their tenth they promise for God’s work. Managing marriage and money matters start best when you first give to God, for the rest is then ordered and planned.

[See Marriage Works May 2009. Be Proactive – Establish a Financial Plan ]

When we give, especially when we give beyond our tithes, we enter into true sowing and reaping. When you tithe, God promises to save you from disasters (Malachi. 3:11). But when you give offerings, something will be “given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over” (Luke 6:38).

The process started with God giving His best, Jesus Christ; it continues when a person surrenders his or her life in commitment to the Lord; and is visibly expressed in tithes and offerings. What a great statement of love and trust toward God, to give the very means by which we live – money. Money is an expression of our love.

Giving money follows the giving of self (2 Cor 8:1-5). When Zacchaeus became a believer the evidence of his changed heart was his desire to make restitution of what he had criminally and fraudulently obtained. The condition of his heart was shown in the use of his money (Luke 19:5-9). Restitution was not a word, but an action. He was generous and his life was in order.

In a later story, Cornelius the centurion qualified to become the gateway of the gospel to the Gentiles, by his praying and his offerings (Acts 10:2-8). Later still, the letter to the church at Corinth tells how those who willingly gave of their means to support the Gospel had first given themselves to God (2 Corinthians 8:5).

Families founder on the rock of unplanned finances and thoughtless debt. When we get our heart right with God we also get our money right, and when our money is right, our marriage and family life is also right.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

Scripture: 2 TIMOTHY 1:3-7

I was interested in the presentations of the International Psychiatric Conference held in Brisbane during February 2010. I have attended proceedings of such a conference previously in Sydney.

At this most recent conference the University of Ottawa psychology professor Catherine Lee said decades of research had repeatedly shown the benefit of quality time spent with children. This Canadian professor explained how research had shown that simple quality time is the key to a happy family and parents who over-schedule their children’s lives are missing out.

Professor Lee said, “I think we’ve got a bit intimidated so that we think that the expensive lessons, or the expensive activities, or the things that we enrol kids in are somehow more valuable. Sometimes they might just want to play Lego with you, or throw a ball around or do something silly and that can be just as important, if not more important, as the lessons and the clubs and the activity. If we don’t have the basics, like enough sleep, if they’re not spending time on those simple meals together, then I think we’re missing something.”

“We know what kids need. Kids need one-on-one with parents and they also need downtime, they need unstructured time and they need to be able to deal with boredom. If you ask kids to think about a happy Christmas, they usually won’t think about what they were given at that Christmas, it will be what they were doing and it’s the time that is the important thing.”

Prof Lee said more research was needed on the changing role of fathers and its impact on family dynamics. “Sometimes when we talk about parenting, we actually mean mothering because we haven’t done enough research with dads,” she said. “And some of the research that has been done has asked mums about dads, which is a filter that is not very helpful.

“This generation are the pioneers who are making this up as they go along. You can’t look at how your dads behaved, that will give you part of the picture. It gives you the soccer and so on, but doesn’t give you the intimate kind of contact that current dads want”, she said. With overlapping roles, modern parents had to learn to accept each other’s style of raising children. When mums think they are giving helpful comments to make dads better dads, dads really don’t see that as helpful”.

“If we want men to back off, that’s probably exactly what we should do. Men are much more likely to be involved if we let them get on with it. Men parent in a slightly different way than mothers do. We’re just starting to understand dads’ role.”

This came home to me through a film of some years ago, Kramer vs. Kramer, which won Oscars in 1979 for best picture, best director, best actor (Dustin Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Meryl Streep). It also showcased one of the typical attitudes of our misguided world. Streep and Hoffman played a wife and husband living in New York City with their young son. Early in the film, the wife announced she’d had enough of their unhappy marriage and was leaving. She promptly took off, forcing the father and son to cope without her and with the pain of her rejection.

Later, however, just when Dad and the boy were coming to terms with Mum’s desertion and getting on with life, she reappeared to say she wanted custody of their son. Her explanation for why she left in the first place? “I had to find myself,” she said, even though her search came at incredibly high cost to her husband and child. Now that she felt good about herself and she wanted to be a mother after all, she expected to walk back in and take possession of the boy.

That kind of self-centred, hurtful thinking, where personal needs take priority over everything else, is all too common in our society today. It’s part of a culture that is destroying homes by the thousands, including many Christian families, where the selfishness may be more subtle but is no less real.

There are no shortcuts when it comes to building a healthy, loving and caring family. It requires time, tears, hard work and sacrifice, putting others first. It also requires the ability to recognise the influence of our misguided world on our own families and the wisdom to guide ourselves and our children safely through it according to biblical principles and values.

We may live in a disintegrating society, but we believe there are principles that families can follow to enable them to stay united. However, if these principles are not followed then we shall see further disruption and decline of family and social life.

1. WE LIVE IN A DISINTEGRATING SOCIETY

Can there be any doubt that our society is eroding at a frightening pace? The greatest threat to our nation does not come from any force or power outside our borders. The decay is coming from within. The destruction of the family structure is accompanied by an attitude that says the traditional family is to be looked down upon, and even reviled.
Yet given a list of six things giving the greatest satisfaction to Australians, a poll found that 70% nominated “family”. Next were leisure activities (10%), friends (7%), work (5%), religion (5%), and possessions (1%). [“The Age Saulwick Poll” ].

When The United Nations declared 1994 to be the “International Year of the Family” it declared as a universal sentiment: “The family constitutes the basic unit of society and therefore warrants special attention.” This echoes The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

In all societies families care for children, educate them, form their character, develop their moral commitment and sense of worth. The nuclear family (mum, dad and kids) is the norm in Western cultures but this way of doing family is historically quite recent. It is a product of the industrial age and the need to be mobile, relocate for work, and the growth of cities. Before the Industrial Revolution most families were self-sufficient economic units, but today very few Western families produce everything they need. It is expensive to have children, so we limit the size of our families.

The ideal of the two-parent family where a man and a woman promise life-long fidelity to each other is under great pressure to survive. These days all kinds of arrangements are called ‘family’: single parents, blended families, unmarried and de facto families. Now gay and lesbian couples want recognition. An Australian politician recently defined ‘family’ as any group of people living together with a common purpose. A squat full of drug-pushers qualify under that definition.

Dr Rolly Croucher, wrote: “There have been two recent revolutions in family life, one in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the other since the 1960s. In the first, the nuclear family broke free of the restraints of village and kin. In today’s revolution, the declining stability in family life and resulting increase in social chaos has been caused by:

*The sexual revolution and the contraceptive pill;

*the ‘Me decade’ in the 1970s;

*women entering the workforce in greater numbers;

*young people staying longer at school;

*easier divorce;

*a higher profile by homosexuals;

*paid maternity and paternity leave;

*parents hesitating to offer any clear value system;

*the right to do your own thing outside of marriage.”

Today there is a great need to re-discover the extended family, which includes older people, single people, disabled people, lonely people. The family of God contains all kinds of people who should be accepted into our extended family. The well known Australian academic and psychiatrist, Dr John Court, said many years ago: “The nuclear family is not the kind of family which will survive beyond 2000, nor indeed would I want to fight for it. It is the extended family which has a long history of stability and the backing of Christian teaching” [“The Family in the Year 2000”, ANZAAS Symposium, University of Adelaide, August 1975 p.2].

The Bible is full of wisdom about family living. We were created to be a family (Genesis 2:24), but sin distorted family relationships (Genesis 3:16). Marriage and family are signs of God’s love for his people. The Mosaic law was family-centred, hence the prohibition of adultery and the command to honour parents. When God came in Jesus Christ, he was born into a family and raised and cared for in that family (Luke 2:51-52). Jesus’ followers, the apostles, affirm a stable family life (Ephesians 5:22-6:4); we are to care for members of our family (1 Timothy 5:8). Earth is the place where God wants us to bear the family likeness of his Son (Romans 8:28f), and heaven will be a grand family reunion, where we shall belong to a spiritual, eternal family rather than a biological family (Matthew 22:30).

2. WE CAN FIND WAYS OF KEEPING OUR FAMILIES UNITED

United families, extended to include people from different racial, cultural, social, economic, religious and political backgrounds, are the hope for the future. It is through both the physical and spiritual nurturing of our families that we can best combat the difficulties currently experienced throughout the world today. Families are precious for providing the framework of life, the morals, values and learning required for each and every individual as they seek to make a good life for themselves, and in turn, for their families also.

One example of an extended family found in the Bible is that of Timothy’s. During the 17 silent years after he had become a Christian and before he left on his first missionary journey, the Apostle Paul visited throughout Turkey from his hometown of Tarsus. In Derbe, Paul met the family of Timothy. Timothy and his mother and grandmother became Christians.

Timothy came from a mixed marriage. His mother, Eunice, was a Jew and his father was a Greek. That mixed marriage gave Timothy an insight into both cultures. That Greek culture was to help Timothy, especially when he ministered in the Greek cities of Corinth, Nicopolis, Thessalonica and Philippi. His mother’s strong faith, firstly as a Jew and then as a Christian, was something for which Paul was thankful. He said “I remember the sincere faith you have, the kind of faith that your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice also had. I am sure that you have it also.” (2 Timothy 1:5)

From examples of Biblical families who remained united despite all the pressures towards fragmentation due to racial, religious and social differences, see what you can do to keep your family united.

A. ACHIEVE A LOVING RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER

I believe we must work to achieve a loving family relationship. I remember going to a golden wedding celebration of a lovely old Christian couple. They had a cake, which was like two cakes joined together. Under their names they put two words which had helped their marriage stay together: Perseverance and Patience. All families must work to achieve a loving relationship. It grows slowly requiring patience and perseverance.

B. BE TOGETHER

How can you be a family if you are not together? There are many people who try to keep out of each other’s company. One of the most important things any family can do is learn to be together. You cannot hope to stay together if you do not spend time together. We should learn to build time into our marriages and into our family life when we can be together, to talk and to listen to each other. As a family we have a family meal together for everyone’s birthday, and with 21 of us, that makes for regular gatherings. Every week we have some member of the family to dinner. We have to learn to spend time together as a family unit.

C. COMMUNICATE TOGETHER

You have to learn to communicate with each other. Communication is a two way process. It means not only speaking at others but it means listening to others. And we have to learn both to speak and to listen.

Mal Meninga, one of Australia’s greatest rugby league coaches, and before that player, was born in the Queensland town of Bundaberg. His father, Norm, was a talented rugby league player whose jobs as a canecutter and later a saw miller were secondary to his success as a captain/coach of country teams. Norm was his son’s coach and also his hero. Looking back, Mal admired his father because Norm was the best footballer he knew. “You’d find Norm and you’d find Mal one step behind,” said his mother Leona.

Things began to go wrong in 1967, when Norm broke most of his ribs in an accident at the sawmill. He had to give up football and became an invalid pensioner. Meninga says his father’s “whole outlook changed. He thought he was useless because he couldn’t do the things he did before. And he took it out on the family a fair bit. He started drinking fairly heavily and got very abusive. It was hard when you came home from school and found your dad trying to strangle your mum.”

When he was 15, his mother enrolled Mal at the police academy in Brisbane. “He didn’t really want to go at that stage, because of what was happening in the family,” she says. It was a turning-point. “If I didn’t go into the force, I’d still be a beach bum on the coast; I’d just be running around in the local league.”

Meninga’s father died in 1982, two weeks before Mal was first selected to play for Australia. Norm had pretended to lose interest in his son’s football career, but Meninga knew this wasn’t true. “One day I was playing at Davies Park, Dad was there, watching me through the fence.” When Mal looked after the match, his father was gone. “I know he was proud of me. He never showed it though. He never told me.”

Family life is impoverished if we do not take the time to communicate with each other about how we feel, about how proud we are of the other person, of how much we love them. I have heard regrets from people at funerals when it was too late to say what we feel.

D. DETERMINE TO STAY TOGETHER

The Kinsey Report is out of date but I can remember way back in the 1950’s that the No. 1 factor in marriages that stay together was the determination of the couple to persist within that marriage. Today too many people give up too easily too soon. Those who have been together for 20 or 30 or 50 years who will tell you it took a lot of perseverance and patience and determination to stick together.

How do you explain that to people? Once a man talking to me about his kids asked: “What is the best thing I can do for my children?” I replied, “Love their mother.” And I meant it. Determination is part of love.

E. ENSURE THAT CHRIST IS HEAD OF YOUR HOUSE

That saying “Christ is the head of this house. The unseen guest at every meal and the silent listener to every conversation” needs to be in the heart of every family. Whenever a family has a basic religious affiliation and commitment at its heart that family stays together and has a centre of hope within it. Statistically, more than anything else, a real faith, whether it be Jewish, Muslim or Christian, provides a basis for a family life together. Jesus and His teachings provide an objective standard against which we can measure our behaviour and values. People who just live together, have children, work, spend, go from one activity to another, subject themselves to every tide of public opinion. Jesus Christ gives us an external standard.

F. FIND WAYS OF SOLVING YOUR PROBLEMS

Find ways of positively coping with your problems. Every family has difficulties. Every family goes through valleys and shadows and storms and desert periods. The way is never smooth. You must learn to find positive ways of coping. I always put faith first because if you have Jesus Christ in your life He then starts helping you to find the positive ways of overcoming your problems.

A recent poll showed that the problems in Australian family life were 91% related to alcohol abuse; 92% involved marital disharmony and argument; 90% involved unemployment and 88% involved financial worry. None of these main causes of family problems should ruin a marriage. Each of them can be handled together. Many organizations have expert staff to help your family cope with each of these problems. No family is sheltered from problems, and I believe that faith in Jesus Christ and following His way is the answer to every one of them.

Most Australians believe that the Christian faith can help you. In the Morgan Gallup Poll, 96% said they believed a religious faith was a positive factor in harmonious family life. Many people have made errors and have started again only because of their faith.

Get your life right with God. Become one of His family and find the resources of faith that help keep your family life united. Our society is rapidly disintegrating because people have no will to find how to hold their marriages and families together. The first step is to place Christ at the centre of your personal life, and then allow His influence to affect your family relationships, and then your marriage.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

The biblical significance of the word mediator is involved. The Interpreters Bible Dictionary takes 15,000 words to unravel it. Kittel and Friedrich fill a small volume. Emil Brunner entitled his mammoth work of 1934 “The Mediator”. This small word is the crux of the uniqueness of Christ.

In the Old Testament only in Job 9:33 (and in some manuscripts 33:23) is the word used and there it is translated as arbitrator or umpire. However, Moses was looked upon as the great mediator of the Old Testament. Covenant although the Law, the prophets, priests, kings and sacrifices were also seen as agents of mediation. The messiah was to be the coming prince who would mediate between the nations and between God and humanity.

In the not the word is used six times, twice of Moses (Gal. 3:19-20). In Hebrews Christ is seen as the mediator of a new Covenant, sealed in His blood, creating a new relationship between God and humanity (Heb. 6:6; 9:15; 12:24).

The single verse (1 Tim. 2:5) is the most interesting use of the word. It is the clearest definition of Christ’s role as a representative of the human race and of God in bringing about man’ reconciliation. It is possibly a quote from an early credal statement of belief. Jesus incorporated the word of God in Himself. In the Old Testament mediator was the term used for the one specially anointed into the service of God and man – the king, the prophet, the priest. The New Testament claims Jesus to be the king, the prophet, the priest, the sacrifice, the Messiah, the divine Lord and Saviour, the mediator between God and man.

FOR TODAY

Mediation involves the creating and maintaining of relationship between God and humanity. Humanity’s sin has created a chasm between the creature and the Creator and Christ is the effective bridge – a term not used in the New Testament but descriptive of His work.

To be effective the mediator must be fully representative of both sides – Son of God and Son of Man. He is the final revelation of God (Heb. 1:1-6) No Joseph Smiths are required!

The umpire’s decision in any sport is always unacceptable to a large number. Umpires are abused, scorned, injured and have even been killed. But their decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into. Jesus accepted His role fully knowing the cost involved.

One great contribution Australia made to international relations between labour and management has been the development of the arbitration and conciliation system. This is tending to be broken down by collective bargaining and direct negotiation with the employer. However, in our relationship with God we are neither the arbitrator, conciliator, negotiator nor bargainer. Christ has done this one our behalf and He works through His Spirit for us to receive God’s grace in our being reconciled to Him.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC

References:
Brunner, Emil The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith
(Lutterworth Press, Cambridge England, 1934 reprinted 2002.)
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G, Editors. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume. Grand Rapids: (Eerdmans, 1985.)

The word ‘lamb’ is frequently used in the Bible (150 times) because of Israel’s pastoral economy. It became a strong symbol in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

In the Old Testament the flesh of lambs was used as food (2 Sam. 12:4), it was used of the innocence of people (Nathan’s reference to Bethsheba – 2 Sam. 12); and of Gods’ care for his people (Isa. 40:11); but basically the use of the lamb involved the sacrificial system. Every day, morning and night, a lamb was sacrificed in the temple (Exo. 29:39-41); on the first day of each month (Num. 28-29); and at all feasts: of the Passover, Feast of Weeks, Day of the Blowing of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles; and at all times of special offerings for birth, death, peace and sin. On all of these occasion lambs were offered singly, in twos, sevens and even forties.

The Passover held the central meaning in the sacrifice of the lamb (Exo.12). The lamb was the symbol of the faith that delivered Israel from death in Egypt. The lamb’s blood was the means of deliverance. However, nowhere in the Pentateuch does the lamb bear the sins of the people. Josiah gave 30,000 lambs for sacrifice at one Passover (2 Chron. 35:7).

In the New Testament there were three major references to Jesus as being the Lamb of God. John the Baptist recognised him as such (Jn 1:29); Philip interpreted Jesus to the Ethiopian (Acts 8:1), and Peter spoke of His blood cleansing our sin (1 Pet. 1:18-19). In these references Jesus was likened to a lamb in terms of purity, gentleness and submission, and because of His sacrifice for the sin of others. This was a fusion of Old Testament ideas from the Passover Lamb and the Suffering Servant (Isa. 53:7-12).

The Book of Revelation uses another term translated as lamb 29 times in referring to Jesus. This time the lamb is also protector, warrior, saviour and ruler. He is still the sacrifice (5:6, 12), the means of cleansing (7:14), but also He has worship (5:12-14), wrath (6:16), the authority (13:8), and the victory (17:14). He is the centre of the throne of God and is betrothed to the Church. This lamb of Revelation has seven horns (5:6) a traditional symbol of a fighting, powerful lamb that protected the flock.

John has combined the picture of the sacrificial lamb of Passover and the powerful lamb of the Apocrypha. He sees Jesus dying as Saviour and reigning as Lord.

FOR TODAY

There must always be in our worship the wonder of our salvation: “He loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

An old Scottish preacher preached on John 1:29 each year with such regularity that his congregation warm-heartedly referred to the date as “Lamb of God Sunday”. As his life drew to an end he lived on only to that day the following year when, weak and ill, he preached at the morning service from a chair on the same theme, and surprised the congregation by preaching on the same theme again from a chair at the evening service. When his daughter asked him why he should repeat the theme he replied, knowing that he was soon to die, “Dear, Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. That is all they need to know.”

Paul makes the point that we must remember both the severity and kindness of God (Rom. 11:32). We need to see Jesus both as the meek sacrifice and the powerful Lord. The Lamb of God was also the Lion of Judah (Rev. 5:5).

Tommaso Campanella, the 16th century Italian poet, stormed at the artists of his day, “Why do you keep painting Christ in weakness, Christ dying, and most of all Christ hanging dead? Paint Christ not dead but risen, with His foot set in scorn on the split rock with which they sought to hold Him down! Paint Him the conqueror of death! Paint Him the Lord of Life! Paint Him the irresistible victor!” He saw the sacrificial lamb and the powerful seven-horned lamb as one, as did John.

REV THE HON DR GORDON MOYES AC MLC