Spiritual Transformation - what it is and how to do it

This essay completes the requirements for a Graduate Certificate in Ministry (Biblical studies). It seems a shame to write so many 3000 word essays for three people to read; so for those who are interested in spiritual growth I have posted my final essay below:

School of Ministry 

JB404 Spiritual Transformation

Ps Andrew Staggs

Task 3: Research and Critical Reflection

Due 12 June 2020

Word Count (3,067)

Identify and critically examine: one role of the Holy Spirit; two personal factors; and one corporate factor in spiritual transformation and comment on their personal significance to your own life. 

Further, critically reflect on one hindrance to your transformation and how this may be overcome.

INTRODUCTION – Definitions of Spiritual Transformation

What is Christian Spiritual Transformation?

Howard (2018, p.13) distinguishes between spiritual formation in different religious and spiritual disciplines, and Christian spiritual formation. This essay considers only Christian spiritual transformation.

Whitney (2014, p.4) says: ‘Spiritual Disciplines are those practices found in Scripture that promote spiritual growth among believers…’ The earliest references are in the scriptures. The life story of Abraham and of Jacob serve as object lessons as they grow in spiritual maturity through trial. In Deuteronomy 30, Moses sets out the blessings and curses of the covenant at Mt Sinai. Later Isaiah speaks of spiritual renewal when he says: ‘Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them return to the Lord…’ (Isaiah 55: 7). Ezekiel promises national spiritual transformation when he says: ‘I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh’ (Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26).

Picking up this theme in the New Testament the apostle Paul describes the outcome of spiritual transformation thus: ‘You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone [as at Sinai] but on human hearts’ (2 Corinthians 3:3). In the New Testament we find the process described using themes of childbirth (Galatians 4:19) and growing from babyhood (1 Peter 2:1-3) to fullness (Ephesians 4:13), to describe the process.  In that context Whitney (2014, p.5) notes that Jesus practiced spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting and solitude, and corporate teaching.

All scriptural references state or imply a turning away from an old way of living/set of values, and experiencing an inner change as right relationship with God is restored. Howard (2018, pp.16-18)  picks up on this sense of movement, or process of change and transformation, where he defines Christian spiritual formation as …’a Spirit- and human-led process by which individuals and communities mature in relationship with the Christian God (Father, Son, sand Holy Spirit) and are changed into ever-greater likeness to the life and gospel of this God.’   This recalls Jesus’ own Trinitarian statement on the essential role of the Holy Spirit: …’the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things’ (John 14:26) and ‘..when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth…’ (John 16:13). 

Perhaps the most comprehensive of the definitions Howard canvasses is by Jeffrey P Greenman: ‘Spiritual formation is the continuing response to the reality of God’s grace shaping us into the likeness of Jesus Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, in the community of faith, for the sake of the world’  Howard (2018, p.16). 

This definition builds on other definitions (Willard, D, Demerest, B, & Hull, B 2010 pp. 20-27)which have the following common elements:

·      a process of transformation from one condition to another that is

·      led/made possible by the Holy Spirit

·      in the context of community

·      facilitated by the spiritual disciplines

·      for the purpose not only of self-development and pleasing God, but directed towards fulfilling the great commission

The above therefore is my personal definition of spiritual transformation. However I would like to unpack it further. 

ONE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - personal significance to your own life. 

One role of this Holy Spirit in my life has been to make real a connection with a Trinitarian God, that concept of God as a singular three in one community working together in mutual submission and cooperation (Citipointe Ministry College, 2020, p. 79). As truthful as that statement is, for me ‘God the Father’ is something of an abstraction since he dwells ‘in heaven’ and if he ever visited earth he seems not to have done so since Solomon’s dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11) . ‘God the son’ was the agent of creation (John 1: 1-3) but that was long ago. As the incarnate Christ he occupied a limited point in physical space and time 2000 years ago then returned to the Father. That is a matter of history but not of personal experience. It is only through ‘God the Holy Spirit’ that we have a personal and experiential connection to the Godhead. Without that connection I would not be a Christian today because I would not lay down my life on the basis of unprovable events (e.g. immaculate conception, divine ascension) alleged to have taken place 2000 years ago and prior. 

For that reason the role of the Holy Spirit in my life is intrinsically connected to the role of the Holy Spirit in the trinity thus:

The world is created through Jesus/Word/Logos. The Father sends Jesus on His redemptive mission. Jesus fulfils that mission by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus reveals the Father. Jesus returns to the Father to intercede to the Father for us. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit points to Jesus. The Holy Spirit is now the operative force in our spiritual lives and the Divine person that unites us mystically with Christ and with the Father per chapter 17 of John’s gospel.  

That is my summation of a great deal of theology. See for example (Willard, D, Demerest, B, & Hull, B 2010 pp.227-253). McKnight (2018, p. 78) puts it this way:

‘The absolute oneness of God (the Father) unleashes the Son, and the Father and the Son unleash the Spirit, and then the Spirit is unleashed into all Christians for the purpose of glorifying Jesus to the glory of the Father.’

In other words, without the Holy Spirit we have only a dry abstract theology and a set of principles and practices which, while excellent in themselves, make us not so different to Islam or any other faith ‘having a form of godliness but without the power’ (2 Timothy 3:5). In contra distinction, by the Holy Spirit we become ‘living stones’ build into a ‘spiritual house’ (1 Peter 2:5). 

The Holy Spirit has made real a connection with a Trinitarian God in the following specific ways:

·      conviction of sin

·      change in my affections away from sin towards righteousness

·      renewed compassion for others including those who have offended me

·      intercessory prayer based on revelation

·      speaking in tongues

·      sense of connection in worship

·      ‘uniquely Christian’ emotions (such as worship and conviction)

·      clear direction in life circumstances (largely recorded through journaling)

·      reminding of the good things of God and of life

·      helping integrate fractured part of my personality

TWO PERSONAL FACTORS - personal significance to your own life. 

Spiritual Disciplines

Whitney (2014 p.14) states that: ‘Holiness is not an option for those who claim to be children of the Holy One (1 Peter 1:15-16), so neither are the means of holiness – that is, the Spiritual Disciplines – an option.’ Throughout my Christian walk I have stumbled across the various spiritual disciplines in an ad-hoc way with little guidance. The various disciplines are discussed below, with specific focus on two.

Different Disciplines

Willard defines spiritual disciplines as ‘exercises unto Godliness’ undertaken to bring us into more effective cooperation with Christ and His Kingdom (Willard, 2010 p. 156). Without attempting further definition, spiritual practice is implied in all of the definitions of spiritual transformation discussed above. Howard (2018 p.101) lists a number of well understood practices which he categorises in a somewhat jumbled way under headings of inward, outward, and corporate disciplines, abstinence, engagement, and soul feast. 

Willard (1991, pp. 157-159 and 176) acknowledges the breadth of spiritual practices including lesser known and less practiced ones such as peregrination, but outlines key practices that are foundation for all believers which he divides simply into disciples of abstinence and disciples of engagement as follows:

‘Disciplines of Abstinence’

·      Solitude

·      Silence

·      Fasting

·      Chastity

·      Secrecy 

·      Sacrifice

‘Disciplines of Engagement’

·      Study

·      Worship

·      Celebration

·      Service

·      Prayer

·      Fellowship

·      Confession

·      submission

Abstinence is summarised as ‘giving up anything that comes between us and God’ such that abstinence makes way for engagement. In this way …’the disciplines of abstinence counteract tendencies to sins of commission, and disciplines of engagement counteract tendencies to sins of omission.’

The Holy Spirit in Spiritual Discipline

The picture that emerges from this collage is more clearly visible at a distance where a picture of a devout, fruitful and partly hidden life comes into focus.  

Surprisingly I have not found an author who attempts to link spiritual disciplines to specific aspects of spiritual transformation. That may be because of significant overlap, and too much categorisation risks becoming artificial. However, using my definition above, we could tentatively suggest the following associations:

A process of transformation from one condition to another that is:

Led by the Holy Spirit	In Community	In Relation to God	Directed Outwards
Study	Study	Solitude	Service
Prayer	Prayer	Sacrifice	Sacrifice
Worship	Worship	Chastity	Evangelism
	Confession	Secrecy
	Fellowship	Fasting
	Submission	Silence
	Celebration

Of course, all of these practices can and should be led by the Holy Spirit. However, the Spirit is particularly operative in study (revelation), prayer (intercession) and worship. Note that ‘celebration’ in this context includes the Eucharist.  I have added ‘evangelism’ to Willard’s list since this arguably is also a spiritual practice (Citipointe Ministry College, 2020, pp.475 – 480 and 299).

Somewhat absent in the literature is a discussion of how focus on those disciplines change over life’s seasons. This can lead to individuals being held (or holding themselves) to an impossible standard. For example, a mother of a new born, or a person with chronic health issues, or someone in certain professions such as a trauma surgeon or ER nurse cannot be expected to invest in certain practices in the way that a monk or a single person or a priest might be expected to. For example, a new mother cannot responsibly fast. It is therefore particularly important to be sensitive to the Spirit’s leading in life’s different seasons and to know which practices to focus on at different times.

Two personal factors in spiritual transformation of particular significance to me have been study and silence.

The Discipline of Study

Growing up outside the church I read the Bible with fewer pre-conceptions than most, but as Ezra turned his heart to study the law of the Lord (Ezra 7:10) so did I, having now both read and studied it since I discovered concordances when I was 12. Having an acute awareness of issues in public life, partly as a consequence of growing up during the Cold War, I have been intentional about developing a Biblical world view with application to both private and public life. I pursued integration between ‘this world’ problems and theological concepts throughout university which led to me a career in environmental activism among other things (Peacock E, 2012). The need to integrate systematic theology with public policy with civic action across a range of issues has never been more urgent. To move forward in this I now need to be credentialed and undertake systematic theology - hence this course.

The Discipline of Silence

I have long practiced silence including spending time in the (literal) wilderness of South West Tasmania. When I practice silence I am positioned to receive a rhema word or other prompting. The practical application of the received word has built both practical life success and faith in God’s care and character. Over time a picture of life mission has emerged.  This is important because just as ‘without vision the people perish’ (Proverbs 29:18), so without a vision, faith is wont to atrophy. 

ONE CORPORATE FACTOR - personal significance to your own life. 

My corporate experience has been mixed, including spiritual neglect, authentic spiritual community, spiritual mentoring, and some less than positive experiences. Howard (2018, p. 198) notes that: ‘Christian spiritual formation is something many people do all the time often without knowing it….’ and asks who we are receiving spiritual formation ministry from and who are we offering it to. For me the most significant corporate factor in spiritual formation was living in authentic Christian community in share-houses for several years and attending daily prayer. It turns out that ‘iron sharpens iron’ (Proverbs 27:17) and God uses friends and conflict in our formation (Whitney, 2014 p. 10). In my experience spiritual issues of acceptance, forgiveness, assertiveness, compassion, and accountability were often worked out through conflict. Community living was formative not only in interpersonal relationships but also as it involved me discipling others, and involved the household providing accommodation and support to (at different times) two recovering schizophrenics (one recovered and one didn’t), a young man with addiction (who left), a reformed dealer who drifted in and out of his Christian walk, and an alcoholic who refused to reform and was eventually thrown out. These challenges proved less difficult than agreeing on housework, but all taught the necessity of group prayer for successful community living. It was in the end the Spirit of God that kept us together and when a commitment to corporate prayer petered out we lost the interdependence and mutual submission of the triune nature and the household petered out. Willard, Demerest, & Hull are correct in quoting Augustin: 

“The body of Christ can live from nothing else but the Spirit of Christ.”[1]

ONE HINDRENCE AND HOW IT MAY BE COVERCOME

The False Self

Mulholland (2006, pp. 30-38) writes of the true self as found in unity with God, creation, and others, and the false self as set alone as against God, creation and others.

‘The placing of ourself in radical separation from God, others and creation – which is the essence of the false self – becomes a pervasive reality that poisons our life with God with our self, with others and in the world.’ 

Mulholland lists consequences of the false self as being:

·      False self is a fearful self – hence also prone to anger 

·      False self is a protective self 

·      False self is a possessive self 

·      False self is a self-promoting self 

That largely describes me; so by this teaching the hindrance is my false self. That said, I have a caution regarding this kind of teaching, namely that duality is a foundational Christian concept without which we risk drifting into Eastern mysticism. We define ourselves with reference to others but relationship by definition requires duality and separateness. Authentic relationships also require choice. ‘I, thee’ relationships may create a synergy that is greater than the sum but they nevertheless require two individuals. There is no such thing as self-giving love without the self. However, the trusting of the self to God, and the uniting of the self with God, is the whole point. For me, that means addressing the points of pain that keep me from trusting or uniting with God.

The Four Levels of Desire

Fr Spitzer (2008, pp.159 – 166) addresses the self and its ‘affections’ in describing four stages of spiritual development (or ‘desire’ in his terminology) thus:

1.    the desire for externally stimulated or physical pleasures or possessions

2.    ego-gratification arising out of the displacement of the outer world toward the inner world, e.g. status, control, power, social standing, comparative advantage

3.    investment of the inner world in the outer world to make a positive difference to it e.g. community involvement, family, causes, and civic action

4.    the desire for the ultimate, unconditional or perfect in truth, love, goodness, beauty and being found only and ultimately in communion with God.

The objective of spiritual formation therefore is to be fully energised by the fourth level of desire and subordinate all other levels to it. Significantly this does not suggest the abolishment of the ego (per Eastern spirituality and some Christian teaching), but the re-orienting of its energies and affections to the ultimate. This is set out in the following diagram from page 160:

I oscillate between all levels to varying degrees but in my experience suppression of desire and ego has had very negative consequences. However, when I connect with God those things do not disappear but the significance and attraction of them falls away. I have been fortunate in my life to have fallen in love. It is an overwhelming obsessive experience that simply makes most other pursuits irrelevant. The pursuit of oneness with another person is a foretaste and type of oneness with God. As Teresa of Avila put it: ‘One can say no more  - insofar as can be understood – than that the soul, I mean the spirit, is made one with God’(quoted in Mulholland 2006, p. 19).

Bibliography

Citipointe Ministry College, School of Ministries of Christian Heritage College, 2020, ‘Spiritual Transformation Study Guide’ Lecture Notes

Fr. Spitzer, R, 2008, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life – A Practical Guide to Prayer for Active People, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 

Howard, EB, 2018, A Guide to Christian Spiritual Formation – How Scripture, Spirit, Community, and Mission Shape Our Souls, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids Michigan

McKnight, S, 2018, Open to the Spirit: God in us, God with us, God transforming us, Waterbrook

Mulheran, B, 2017, Jesus Author and Finisher – Timeless Principles of Christianity, Synergy Publishers, Gainesville Florida 

Mulholland, R, 2006, The Deeper Journey, the Spirituality of Discovering your True Self, IVP Books

Peacock, E, 2012, Finding Home – An autobiographical account of a child migrant growing up on the edge of the Tasmanian Wilderness, AuthorHouse

Strong, J., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts

The Holy Bible: New International Version 1998, New American Library, New York, NY

Whitney, D, 2014, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, Tyndale House Publishers

Willard, D 1991,  The Spirit of the Disciplines, understanding how God changes lives,HarperSanFrancisco

Willard, D, Demerest, B, & Hull, B 2010, The Kingdom Life – A Practical Theology of Discipleship and Spiritual Formation,NavPress

---

[1]Unfortunately the page number did not photocopy but this quote comes under the heading ‘Caught Up into the Trinitarian Life’ per Willard, D, Demerest, B, & Hull, B 2010, The Kingdom Life – A Practical Theology of Discipleship and Spiritual Formation,NavPress

BREXIT Explained for Australians

Henry VIII was Britain's First Brexiteer



For people in Australia the whole EU Brexit thing can be very weird. That’s because we don’t teach European history in schools. So for those interesting in such things let me explain….

Europe was first integrated by the Romans who established the first centralised EU bureaucracy. Eventually the Roman Catholic Church replaced the Roman Empire. Once the Vatican got Western Europe established they decided to expand into Russia with the fourth crusade in 1201. It took the Russians a while but they won back their lost lands in 1261. The Russian Orthodox Church got a bit miffed about it all and didn’t talk to the Vatican for over eight centuries. They have been a bit suspicious of Western intentions ever since.



In 1531 the English king Henry VIII got a bit miffed with EU regulations, specifically the one about not chopping your wife’s head off and marrying someone else, and took Britain out of Europe. In doing so he inadvertently helped the Reformation along which led to the industrial revolution which made Britain a world power and established global European supremacy in the 19th Century.

The next major attempt at European unity was secular and led by the French dictator Napoleon. Napoleon thought that invading Russia would be a good idea, assembled a coalition of European nations, and marched on Moscow. The Russians slaughtered them, and the Prussians and the British BREXITed Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo.

Sometime later the Prussians, the Brits and the French decided to have another go at Russia and invaded Crimea. The Russians slaughtered them and the Brits went home and built the British Empire instead. (Prussians are Germans BTW).

Then in the early 20^th Century the British establishment became concerned at the rise of Germany and their military and industrial potential, so they allied with France over a relatively trivial border dispute and imposed a naval blockade on Germany. This precipitated a war which got rid of a lot of unnecessary working class people (around 15 million of them) who were getting a bit uppity about their rights, and put Germany back in its box. This is called ‘World War One’. Just to be sure, the treaty of Versailles was designed to destroy the German economy.

After this Germany developed a more muscular policy towards European integration and integrated the whole of Western and Eastern Europe suppressing popular nationalist movements. Hitler thought that invading Russia would be a good idea, assembled a coalition of European nations, and marched on Moscow. The Russians slaughtered them.

The British establishment was favourable towards European integration but were thwarted by the British secret service, the working class, and a maverick Tory named Winston Churchill (not to mention the RAF).

In the 1970s Thatcher led Britain into the Common Market - a Northern European customs and currency union. However, this became a mechanism whereby the Germans and French re-integrated the whole of Europe including the Eastern States suppressing popular nationalist movements. Once they got Europe established they decided to expand into Russia. So they and the USA sponsored a coupe in Ukraine which aimed to capture …. Crimea. Russia held a free and fair referendum in Crimea and the majority voted to stay with Russia, which they did. So after three hundred years of Europe trying to annex Crimea, the Western media now accuse Russians of Annexing their own country. It’s really quite funny.

The British establishment remained favourable towards European integration but some idiot named David Cameron forgot that the British are British and allowed a popular vote on staying in the EU which the EU lost. The establishment pulled out all stops but still it may now have been thwarted by the working class telling Jeremy Corbyn to get stuffed, and a maverick Tory named Boris Johnson (not to mention an annoying nationalist called Nigel Farage).

Not discussed in this article is Islam’s thousand year attempt to colonise and occupy Europe. Facilitating that is now the policy of Germany, the EU, and all the leftist/progressive parties of Europe, and around 200 NGOs funded by an ex-Nazi collaborator called George Soros. This is of course an underlying reason for BREXIT.

So there you have it. It’s all about chlorinated chicken, silly internet memes, and a man with a bad haircut.

Personally, now that the people have spoken through two elections and a referendum this is the message I would like Boris to take to the EU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Freedom in Australia - Review

Dear Mr Porter MP

I recently signed a petition regarding the current review into religious freedom (Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 (Exposure Draft). I regret that I was not able to write a detailed submission before the cut-off date. However I still wish to forward some broader concerns to you regarding freedom that are relevant to this process.

I am a State Servant of 20 years standing and a professional policy analyst. I have worked as a policy adviser for Premier and Cabinet (2005), the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DSEWPAC), and currently work as the rescuer of crisis projects/processes within the Department of Justice in my State. I am also the author of an on-line training course in civics (www.3ptraining.com.au ) and maintain an active interest in a number of policy areas including defence. I am a former left wing activist now conservative writer, and have studied the ‘progressive’ movement for some years. I am also studying for ordination.

Thank you for conducting this review and giving the ‘quiet Australians’ a chance to be heard. You will recall that the Coalition Government allowed the plebiscite on redefining marriage on condition that this review would take place, and that it would adequately protect those who hold to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality. More broadly the success of the ‘yes’ vote was based on the public reassurance that no one would be made worse off if this country changed its official view on human sexuality and relationships. It follows that, if this review does not adequately protect those who hold to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality then:

• the redefinition of marriage has no legitimacy and should be reconsidered; and
• the Coalition Government lacks legitimacy.

In that context, the problem requiring resolution is that ‘anti-discrimination law’ so called, is now used as a one sided weapon by the Left to impose cultural Marxism on society, (including with respect to human sexuality). It is a consequence of the ‘long march through the institutions’ and is a form of ‘repressive tolerance’ by the Left. See further my paper on Defeating Cultural Marxism that I attach for reference. I could cite many examples but I am sure the Australian Christian Lobby and others have already supplied them in submissions.

In addressing that problem your government has two options. The first option is to try to make anti-discrimination law fair by granting broad exemptions. In my view that cannot work in practice because:

1. the relevant tribunals are controlled by cultural Marxists who will ensure that any such attempt fails; and
2. one should not have to be a member of a recognised religious group to avoid punishment for expressing an opinion; and
3. creating two classes of citizens – religious people who can avoid punishment for their beliefs and non-religious citizens who can be punished for the same beliefs – is inherently unfair; and
4. any proposal broad enough to allow genuine freedom of belief would so fundamentally undermine the existing law as to call into question the purpose of that law.

In that context I note that the current proposal in manifestly inadequate and will fail. For example:

Clause 41 (1) of the Bill does provide that statements of religious belief will not contravene Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act. This is welcome and would have avoided Archbishop Porteous being dragged through mediation. However, Clause 41 (2) provides that any statement of belief that is likely to “vilify” another person or group of persons will not be protected by Clause 41 (1). What does “vilify” mean? Is a statement which someone feels insults or criticises (these are synonyms of vilify) them, enough to render a statement of belief discriminatory? This is a term that has caused widespread criticism of Section 17 and of Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act as being too low a threshold for a claim of discrimination.

If the government wishes to continue with the bill then at an absolute minimum the bill must:

• allow employers to select staff whose views align with the stated mission of their organisation, whether that organisation is religious or secular
• protect members of professional associations from discrimination on the basis of their professional and/or scientific opinions and personal values (including for example refusal to refer children to gender re-assignment surgery or referring/not referring a person to an abortion provider)
• protect employees from compelled speech (e.g. gender pronouns)
• Protect employees from discrimination for expressing opinions that are not directly relevant to their employment
• protect the right of parents to choose the educational method and moral instruction of their children e.g. the right to be prior informed about sexual content in school curriculum and the right to remove their child

The second option is to largely abolish existing anti-discrimination law by means of a Federal bill of rights. This approach is not about ‘religious freedom’ but freedom.

It is about the freedom to:

• rent your property to whomever you want based on whatever criteria you choose
• employ whomever you want based on whatever criteria you choose (subject to safety and licensing requirements, and professional qualifications)
• choose the educational method and moral instruction of your children
• hold to traditional religious and cultural beliefs (including indigenous beliefs) or not
• express your beliefs and opinions without fear of lawfare by radical activists, physical intimidation, de-registration from professional bodies, retaliation by employers, and persecution by quasi-judicial tribunals, professional associations, and non-judicial boards

Essentially it is about the right and duty of adult citizens/residents to behave like responsible adults who can ‘live and let live’. In that context it is about freedom not to:

• have your children psycho-sexually abused by schools
• be punished by your employer for expressing opinions they don’t like
• be professionally de-registered for expressing scientifically accurate/professional opinions that don’t align with specific social agendas
• be punished by quasi-judicial bodies for expressing opinions that other people don’t happen to agree with; or find offensive
• be compelled to use certain loaded words and phrases (such as gender pronouns) which compel agreement with highly contested and improbable ideologies
• be compelled to agree with highly contested claims and improbable ideologies by your employer (e.g. mandatory gender quotas, ‘misgendering’ in the workplace) unless that has a direct connection with your employment

This is a very different approach to that sought by the religious lobby and will in some instances leave religious people open to discrimination by employers. It will also remove the fear and the veil and make public all the prejudices and hatreds that we as a community hold. Would that be a bad thing? Should government act like a controlling parent and make us all be nice to each-other? Should Muslims have to rent to Jews? Should Christians have to employ transgender wierdo’s in their schools? Could we actually tell the truth about one-another? Must we be compelled to pay homage to the secular gods of multiculturalism, feminism, transgenderism, Marxism, consumerism, environmentalism, nationalism, globalism, or any other ism? Should the market place of ideas not be free?

As a Christian I am used to having my views ridiculed and I am not afraid to have them challenged, or to compete in the market place of ideas, or to be wrong. I am afraid of the creeping censorship and repression currently masquerading as tolerance, and the consequential loss of our national character. This review represents a generational opportunity to turn that around.

Of the two approaches outlined I commend the latter approach. In support of this, allow me one example. Suppose the law were evenly applied. Professor Dawkins has published a book currently for sale in Australia titled “The God Delusion”. By this title he states that anyone who believes in divinity is delusional and by implication suffering from a mental condition. This insults at least four fifths of humanity including me.  For reference, in the USSR Christians were sent to mental institutions for ‘treatment’ for their delusional beliefs. It is a statement at least comparable to arguing that transgenderism is a mental illness or that homosexuality can be cured. It arguably meets the current bar for hate speech. How should Dawkins be censored? Should his books be banned in Australia? Should he be denied a visa like Milo Yiannopoulos was? Should the British government compel an apology? Should he be thrown out of his university? Should all publishers be forced to submit their titles for approval by a government board? The Left support the current regime because it supports their purposes but if the law were evenly applied they would be the first to scream about censorship and big government, and I would agree with them.

If your government lacks the moral courage to adopt the latter option and allow us to be Australians again, please consider my points on the former option.

Respectfully yours

Game of Thrones - Why the Left Keep Losing Elections

So the Australian Labor Party just lost the unlosable election. Like Hillary Clinton wasn’t supposed to lose and like Brexit wasn’t supposed to happen, and like people really need to be helped to see just how wonderful progressive politics really is.


Oh, and here I need to Segway with an update - Labor UK just suffered their worst defeat in 85 years at the hands of working class Britons. If politics was war, their defeat over Brexit would be called ethnic cleansing.


In Australia, just like in the US, the progressives are blaming the working class for being “dumb greedy and mean” and blaming the loss on insufficient progressive media bias, a fictional ‘right’ that somehow stole the election (at least they didn’t blame Russia this time), and pretty much everything except themselves. As far as belief in one’s own rightness and infallibility go, these guys make the papacy look amateurish. For just one example of determined un-learning and un-listening and unbelievable arrogance, see here.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-23/labors-election-loss-made-me-question-my-progressive-bubble/11138632]

 

Australia's Prime Minister Elect Celebrates

So, what can be learned?


I grew up and live in a white working class/welfare class suburb. I am grateful to the ALP for having the opportunity to go to University, my life was saved in a public hospital, I have been unfortunate enough to be on welfare on two occasions, and I am happy to pay taxes for all these things. But what we are seeing now is a seismic shift from policies to create opportunities for working class people, to an assault on society itself.

Its a matter of both message and substance.

This is the social justice warrior message to the people I live around:

You suck. Your values suck. Your culture sucks. Your civilisation sucks. The country your grandparents fought for is evil and does not deserve to exist. Every other race, culture, creed and sexual orientation is better than yours so hand over your country now! Oh, and by the way, we don’t trust you to manage your money so you had best hand it over for re-distribution. Oh, and those kids of yours; yeah we’re gonna force you to hand them over to us to use for our sick social experiments into genderless/fatherless ideology and sexual deviance… and if you’re not happy about that, well fuck you bigot you are an example of everything that’s wrong with the world. Oh, and you’re destroying the planet too.

 

The Trump/Morrison message to the people I live around:

You’re awesome. I love what you do for a living. What a great country you built. Hey let’s make it even better. I like your values. You can have your faith based schools and chaplins. We’re not going to sack you for your opinion. We’ll make sure you don’t get paid much but hey, here’s a tax break. Now let’s all get back to work.

 

I mean gosh, what is wrong with working people?

What is ‘wrong’ with them, is that they have a fundamental grasp of reality. Behind the various policies (actual and publicly acknowledged) of the progressive left are the following core beliefs.

People are inherently good

The locus of evil therefore lies not in the human heart, but in forms of social organisation – capitalism, patriarchy, nationalism, heteronormativity, - in other words, normal society

Therefore normal/Western society must be overthrown

This must be accomplished by mass immigration, the destruction of the family unit, public control of the means of production, state control of reproduction and children, mass social indoctrination, re-writing history, and cutting people off from their family, sexual, ethnic, religious, national, and cultural identity

All cultures and races are equal (not withstanding the above)

It follows that equal numbers of every race and culture can live harmoniously in the same polity

Therefore white people should accept their role as a minority group in their own countries and stop reproducing

When all this is accomplished a just and good society will rise phoenix like from the ashes of the West

In time all societies will join to form a single world government that ends war, saves the planet, and propels humanity to the next stage of evolution

The short hand term for this belief system is ‘cultural Marxism’. Essentially this is the belief system of a dangerous secular cult. Working people understand intuitively that this system is aimed at them and all they hold dear. They also understand that none of these beliefs is true, and that if put into public policy, would result not in a new utopia, but a hellish dystopia. Absent the West and the alternative is Islam, Chinese communism, or chaos.

As society increasingly rejects this lunacy at the ballot and in public life, the secular cult is becoming increasingly angry, desperate and controlling. Hence the commentary.

Am I exaggerating? For pointing out on facebook that Islamic immigration is a problem and Senator Anning had a point, I was told that I was an example of ‘everything that is wrong with the world’ by someone I have never met. During the gay marriage campaign one commentator tweeted that he wanted to “hate fuck the homophobia” out of politicians who didn’t support redefining marriage. That wouldn’t matter except that he had just published an article with a leading progressive on-line magazine, plus no one on the social left publicly criticised him, and he kept his 70 thousand followers on twitter…and he was promoting violent rape. There are hundreds of other examples but it would be depressing to start listing them.

Note however that Australian Labor Party policy includes criminalising paediatricians for referring young children to counselling for gender dysphoria and forcing them to refer the child for irreversible hormone blocking drugs that cause permanent brain damage and developmental abnormalities. That’s just one part of the ALPs toxic cocktail of mandatory child abuse. It didn’t sway the election because the media mostly refused to talk about it, but people are sensing that, as much as we wanted to do something good for the gay community in voting for same sex marriage, de-gendering society and trying to turn kids into trans/queers through the public school system is a bridge too far. Oh, and didn’t some footballer just lose a $4million contract simply for stating Christian beliefs in public? I don’t happen to agree with what he said BTW but could I be sacked for this blog? There are certainly people who would like to see that happen.

I once spent some time in a strict religious group. I have also spent 15 years in progressive politics. I can honestly say that the religious group was more accepting and broader minded than the SJW crowd.

Which brings us to Game of Thrones.

I hereby dedicate this dialogue to Penny Wong:

 

Jon confronts Daenerys in the following scene, angrily demanding to know why she would order the execution of prisoners of war after the war had been won.

“It was necessary,” Daenerys quietly replies. Jon continues to plead on behalf of the men, women, and children burned alive by Daenerys’ attack.

“[Cersei, the queen of King’s Landing and Daenerys’ enemy] tried to use their innocence against me. She thought it would cripple me,” Daenerys rationalizes.

Jon continues to plea on behalf of Tyrion, who faces execution for treason.

“We can’t hide behind small mercies,” Daenerys resolves. “The world we need won’t be built by men loyal to the world we have... It’s not easy to see something that’s never been before. A good world.”

“How do you know it’ll be good?”

“Because I know what is good,” Daenerys affirms.

“What about everyone else?” questions Jon earnestly. “All the other people who think they know what’s good?”

“They don’t get to choose,” states Daenerys flatly.