Thought for the Weekend

How many friends on Facebook represent active relationships?

Some people don’t have Facebook.

 

The Voters have Spoken

A lot of controversy covered the events following Thursday’s vote, but none so interesting as the requirement Nick Clegg felt to take the result personally. It was as if the question on the ballot read: “Do you like Nick Clegg?” Of which the 3 options were:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Hell No!

I only have a few short comments to make on the matter. The first being it isn’t personal, Mr. Clegg, we just don’t want what you want. The turnout for the vote was higher than usual, and the majority was self explanatory. I’ve already stated my opinion of democracy, but the numbers show what can be done with the power of a vote.

The higher than average turn out shows that people wanted to be heard on the matter. And the margin by which the resounding “NO” was said only further shows that this country will listen when it matters. It actually points to the involvement of the country on policy change as being more effective than voting for a party.

Whatever the motive behind each vote it wasn’t another back stabbing action to the deputy prime minister; he didn’t have enough votes the first time round for that to be the case!

 

Thought for the weekend

You know my opinion on AV.

What is yours?

 

Kingdoms: I like them

I never took much interest in political debates. I found them boring, strangely depressing, and I didn’t know enough about the subject to offer anything serious to a discussion. I knew my vote was important, and gave what little attention I could to make my vote marginally worthwhile. I’m not really a party supporter, through and through, but if there are key things I disagree with I move away from supporting them each time a vote comes round. In the last election, as the Lib Dems gave the impression they were gaining ground, I couldn’t help but feel cheated that they prioritised lower taxes (more money for everyone) over abortion rates (increasing the period a child can be killed while in the womb) – I didn’t vote for them. Who in their right mind would think money is more important than life? Well, we have seen that the Lib Dem banner is as confused as a flamingo in a board meeting; distinctive colour and following whoever will let them into number 10.

Anyhow, a kingdom is vastly different. It isn’t about voting but about choosing. Those who are recognised are chosen to have more responsibility. The “King” (I would say monarch but I’m not talking about a monarchy) has close council; friends and advisors who help him do the best job he can do. I’m currently reading through Exodus and Moses was asked to stop taking all the responsibility on himself and to share it with those who he thought could lead, and that they in turn would choose who could lead thousands, hundred, and tens. The whole idea of this kind of organisation is responsibility. Taking responsibility for people and actions, and seeking help when you’re not sure what to do. It’s about a humble, servant heart, to get the best out of all people. This is how a kingdom can truly operate.

Although it isn’t perfect, the example of English monarchs, who had knights, barons, and other people watching over areas of the country shows a veering towards a kingdom that reflects what is truly best for the people. The blame culture we live in today creates a massive gap between truth and responsibility. With enough information, the blame for any bad news can be shifted from person to place to event to object to city to thought to book etc… until the actual point being made is lost. Responsibility can be taken by those unafraid of losing their position because they have been chosen, incredibly privileged because they’ve been given responsibility, and incredibly humble to see that they cannot do what they are asked without the help of others.

This is the form a true church government should take, and a kingdom on a larger scale would make this be something entirely different.

I am an idealist, and kingdoms are a long way off, if at all possible. But they are what I see as the way to see this country (and any other with a mind to put things right) take governmental structure in the right direction.

 

Democracy: A Critique

As Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes the creation of Bill Watterson) says, “A good compromise leaves everybody mad”.

I have held this opinion for a while, but it’s time I came out and said it in public. No matter how many people vote “For” something, there will still be a group who voted “against”. And with all the various options we get these days, the winner is usually still not a majority. Even if 60% of the votes are positive, there are still 40% of the voters (which is a large chunk of any populous) that wanted something else. As this gives rise to the majorities choice, we soon find out that even if our choice is the winner, it doesn’t quite shape up how we had planned, and ultimately leaves everybody unhappy.

Democracy gives everyone a voice, it’s true. It’s probably the best option we have for any serious societal government until we can begin to take responsibility for our own actions throughout all of England. The largest part of the societal mix up has been blame. As a general rule, blame is brought on those in authority, with little humility to take responsibility for their own actions. I know that with all my actions, I look for the reasons for why things happened the way they did if they didn’t go according to plan. That way responsibility is moved away from me. I push the blame to things outside my control so I cannot be held to account for the results that happened.

Governmental control feeds this eagerness to blame everyone else. The police are blamed for high crime rates, rather than criminals, the banks are blamed for our debt, rather than those who borrowed, and the government are blamed for poor management of the country, when we have voted them into power. (Of course if you didn’t vote at all, you have no right to complain either. Not voting and then complaining about the state of the government is like having a train ticket left at home, then wondering why you’ve got to pay a penalty fare on the journey. It’s not clever to keep silent when you can make a decision to ensure you are heard.)

The votes given to the people of this country are an attempt to share the power with people. But, in no uncertain terms, I disagree with democracy as an effective form of government. The parties are made up of groups of people all fighting for their own way. Even though we have a Prime Minister, he doesn’t carry the kind of power a leader of a country would expect to, as the members of parliament take what was a good idea, water it down, bring compromise at every hurdle, and ultimately ruin any effective change by vote after vote after vote, creating an inactive, oversubscribed, liberal, messy club. I don’t think America have got it right either, even though the president has more power than any other country’s leader, currently. Though I’ll leave other countries there, for now.

I’m a kingdoms man myself. I like the idea of kingdoms. Not republics, democracies, dictatorships, anarchic states, or any other. No. Kingdoms are my thing. Though they are incredibly difficult to maintain, they are the best for all involved.

I’ll keep you in suspense and open up what a kingdom is in my next post.

 

Power in Voting

On Tuesday I began to unfold what it is to believe in the sovereignty of God in government.

Today, in the midst of continued strife, and an upcoming vote on the reform of elections, I will address our country.

Alternative voting, or AV for short, is a novel way of ranking our favourite candidates so we give our preference over others, without actually ruling anyone out. You give a ranking and the statisticians do the rest. The summary I’ve heard of it, and I haven’t heard much, is that you vote 1,2,3 etc… for the candidates in order of preference. The candidate with 50% of “1″s will win, otherwise it will move down the ranks until a majority of some kind is found.

Does that make sense? No. It’s confusing. Ultimately, this new proposed voting system makes the results equally as unsatisfying as any other kind of voting. As Jubilee Centre have said “We could spend days and years discussing how to structure government differently and how to determine who should represent us in government, but it will still come down to people with different ideas and values needing to cooperate and negotiate in the interests of the common good.”

Today’s government is designed to give power to the people through their votes. However, true empowering requires facilitating those who have no idea where to begin, to get up and actually do something.

The Jubilee Centre article on “The AV Debate” includes a well thought out discussion, with examples where AV is currently being used (Canada and Australia) but is not giving a fair representation as promised.

Again, the final article Jubilee-Center.org gives to this debate gives these two thoughts:

“The bible repeatedly teaches us that the centralisation of power in any individual or institution increases the temptation for corruption and exploitation. The Old Testament in particular therefore envisages power being balanced across various sources of authority: the individual, family, community, religious bodies (Levites), region (tribe), and nation. Between them they formed a network of concurrent authorities each instituted by God and protected, limited and empowered by the national constitution.”

“Ultimately, whatever electoral system we have, we will still be disillusioned and disappointed with the results, for no leader or team of leaders, however gifted, is able to solve all society’s problems.”

I don’t agree with democracy as a governmental system. But it’s what we have and to not vote is to decide to not use the power you’ve been given. The Apostle Paul lived in an organised empire with all kinds of different out workings from region to region. Tyrants, despots, dictators; along with rulers that would surprise him with kindness and helpfulness. This formed a view of government that God in His supremacy has put in place. To judge that some are from God and some from Satan is to miss the fact that Satan is limited by our Sovereign King.

To conclude I would encourage you to vote “NO” on May 5th when the referendum is opened up to us, the voters. Changing the voting system is irrelevant to the needs of this country. As many have seen, the coalition has been a failure in it’s initial promises, and every attempt to continue is drawing the union of opposing forces to a predictable early demise. What we need is a government showing real change in real places, rather than theoretical change that will not solve any actual problems.

Next week I will go into more detail of my opinion on democracy.

 

Government from God

A lovely alliteration to start a discussion:

As I posted on Saturday, I began, and have wondered for a while, what we can say when the verses from Romans say God has placed all government where it is, when so many countries are being led by men who should be in psychiatric facilities. Hitler, one of the greatest leaders and speakers of the 20th century, misled thousands, if not millions, of people into a dictatorship costing millions of lives. According to Paul in Romans 13, God put him there.

The current world status of Libya, Egypt, and other Arab nations begs the same question: did God really put these people in power? Surely the devil has more to do with this (I write as a Christian, not a philosopher).

We must remember, however, Paul was not living in a world with a perfect government seen as a gift from God. In 2 Corinthians he informs us of his beatings, floggings, stonings, humiliations; all done by local authorities. He wasn’t a man separated from dealings with these forces. Yet he still writes “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval…”

There are a few points to bring from this:
1. Government is more important than anarchy; i.e. Authority is a good thing.
2. Local government should benefit us; i.e. There should be amenities provided by those you pay tax to.
3. Tyrants should be appropriately challenged or confronted, just as Paul called for an audience with Caesar. i.e. The government will be wrong.
4. The kingdom of God overlaps and invades all of life, including governmental powers. i.e. Separating faith from state denies the biblical principle that God placed the rulers where they are.

What else do you think could be said in the current events?

 

Jim Colwright

I wrote this to make sense of what I saw:

“The man had lived on the streets for years. He obviously had experience of travel. He had a fairly well spoken demeanour, and spoke of seeing New York and parts of Mexico. Now he was ragged and confused. This once well-travelled, witty, family man, had been lowered to the observers of everyone’s success but his own. He sat on the tube that day; a pile of newspapers cushioning his seat. he spoke with excitement about the state of the world, and how our MPs were corrupt and selfish. But there was a pain behind his eyes. Had his perception of the world been shaped by some terrible past experience?

The loss of his wife came shortly after his relationship with alcohol had become a priority but didn’t mix well with the family and she’d left with the children without a trace. It had been a result of needing to unwind after stressful days at the office, soon they became nights at the office. And led to a considerable number of nights in the office, which was why he was dismissed. The compassion he required was not found in the city of Men. The competition had taken his marriage and his job.

He had crossed the Atlantic looking for the love of his life. He searched high and low, spent what little he had to travel from city to city. He just wanted to see his children again. Now he was on the streets. The simple need to speak was apparent whenever people were within a few feet of him. Alcohol wasn’t there anymore, but the damage of his experiences had done enough to make his behaviour repelling.

He sat, alone.

In his hands were a pile of A5 informational flyers from the London Underground, and a red marker pen. He carefully wrote:

“CITY WIDE
FLAT FARE 170p
25 MILES
NEW YORK”

The other side had “MPs SCUM TAX PETROL”

It made sense to him.

Once he had completed the task, he put the flyer at the bottom of his pile and started again. This was his way of coping. He was alone.”

 

Greed and Gluttony

Greed — Hoarding unnecessary resources indefinitely to absurd amounts, way beyond the lifespan of the person to whom they belong.

Gluttony — Consuming copious amounts of resources, far more than recommended, or required, to sustain, encourage growth and bring enjoyment; to the point of cumbersome living beyond possible enjoyment of current resources available.

Wordy and laboured definitions of 2 sins far worse when watched over years.

Greed refuses to use what he has. Gluttony refuses to moderate the usage. It becomes a one or the other mentality.

Jesus had an experience with a rich young man which concluded:
Matt 19:21 “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

What astonished me in a recent reading of this story was the disciples reaction. “Who then can be saved?”. It was as if they knew that all were rich in some respects; or at least all who were present.

To be rich or to be poor is less about what you have, and more about how you treat what you have. Do you hoard? Do you consume?

In a way, poverty can be seen as a state brought on by the greed of others, or the gluttony of the individual. I don’t want to blame the poor for their state of being, but there are those that have found themselves in poverty due to their laziness (Proverbs 23:33-34).

Bridging this reflection on how we treat the what the world has to offer I am beginning to realise that after the root of sin (idolatry) is realised you can see it everywhere. But the wider effect takes these two forms.

Sin is idolatry. Making something more important than it actually is. Everything is below God, hence you either worship a person, an object, and idea, or the creator of all of the above. But out of idolatry these two deadly sins arise; greed and gluttony. I don’t know where to go with this train of thought, except in practical application, the true response to available resources is generosity.

Generosity led Jesus to use all he had to save us from all we had. Whether we filled storehouses, filled stomachs, empty bank accounts, or empty stomachs, he came to use all he had, giving away all his riches, becoming poor, to make us rich.

True generosity is the true use of resource. Not hoarding or consuming. Maybe I should have called this “Generous: How to use what you have”

My only failure would have been I’m not going to tell you how to be generous.

 

The Junk Mail Filter

This is a reaction:

It’s harder and harder for junk mail filters to work effectively. As we enter into a new age of the Internet, the old junk that is kindly removed before we see it is now more prominent than ever, and yet we don’t notice it. Why? Google and other clever corporations have worked on ways to ensure we don’t see the ridiculous pleas to click and win $2,000,000; or have a larger… house.

The new junk is clever and asks for less clicking and more volunteering. That is, volunteering of information. I’ve had the occasional request from HSBC and Halifax to send them my personal details to ensure that, since their security breach, they will be able to verify who I am and lock down my account. These are easy to spot as neither of these I bank with.

However, desperate emails from foreign citizens find their way into my inbox. The trouble with these is you’re unsure if they’re legitimate or not (they’re not) and they use life stories to suck you in. And if that wasn’t enough, they usually offer large cash sums along the way. The last one I was offered $54,000,000. A small proportion of a 17 year old boys inheritance, who was stuck at customs for being under age and carrying a suspicious amount of money.

I pick on this one because it is the most recent and the most convincing. Yet it is also the most disgusting. Why? The setting of the boys background was the Libyan crisis, of which he managed to escape with his fathers inheritance who was killed by Gadaffi’s forces.

This pulls on our conscience. We know what’s going on out there, to a degree, and now it has found it’s way onto my doorstep. Surely I should help (regardless of the large sum of money being offered).

I leave this open. But here are some tips I’ve used to check if the email is from a legitimate source:
1. Check the spelling. Simple spelling mistakes will crop up where the claim is false.
2. Check grammar and punctuation. As point 1.
3. Check the “From” email address. This is usually a random set of letters and numbers. If the email is coming from a lawyer you would expect a simpler email address somehow relating to the name given in the email.
4. Check the “To” or “Cc” fields. Either your email will not appear at all. This means you have been “BCc’d” on the email, meaning it could have gone to thousands of others. Or there are a few other email addresses that appear randomly generated in the same fields.
5. Finally, if in doubt delete it. If it’s truly important but you don’t know what to do, they will be in touch again. And if they have your email and they are legitimate they should have got it from a legitimate source. If they don’t give any good reason as to why they have your contact details then it is highly suspicious.