Again, there is no right not to be offended.

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth mentioning again. There simply is no right not to be offended. Jim Spigelman said it, and Lionel quotes it.

We might not enjoy being offended. We are rightly upset if Jesus Christ whom we worship is insulted. But I agree with ABC chairman and former chief justice of the NSW Supreme Court, Jim Spigelman, who said last month: “The freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech. There is no right not to be offended.”

Read Lionel's article here: The Edict of Milan and religious liberty

Resolutions: Being fatherly on the Father's Day

Although the consumerism of our day has hijacked most of its meaning and our letterboxes and inboxes are full of junk trying to get us buy stuff "for our fathers", the Father's Day is still a helpful reminder for all of us to express our appreciation for fathers and honour them for being one. Unfortunately, for many people in our society, this Father's Day would bring back painful memories and invoke sadness or anger for their abusiveness or absence.

This got me thinking, how should I celebrate my Father's Day? As a father myself now, my first impulse was "what can I get?" Tragic. I know. But I wonder how many of my fellow Australian fathers think the same thing. A new tool, gadget, toy, or a dvd set? A new shaver, perfume, tie, shirt, shoes, or even socks? A nice meal, beers, wines, or even whiskey? How about just a lazy day when I don't have to care about vacuuming or dishwashing, kids, or my personal hygiene? Whatever it is, my point is that it is so very easy for any of us to think self-centred.

There is nothing wrong for my kid (well, when he grows up a bit more) to buy nice gifts for me, and even now, it's nice and even heart-warming when my wife cares to let me enjoy the Father's Day and shows her approval of me as a father to our child. But, as a father myself, there's something insidious about focussing my thoughts on "what I can get this Father's Day." I don't know, maybe I'm just too much of a beginner as a father and haven't learned to forget about myself and serve my family more selflessly, self-forgetfully, even on a Father's Day.

But if my suspicion on our day's culture and society is correct, many of the fathers in Australia tend to think that we deserve to be treated with gifts, ease, carelessness, and time for ourselves, at least on this Day. Perhaps it is precisely what's needed for some fathers. I doubt it to be the case for most fathers. It certainly isn't the case for me.

I don't want to be like that. I don't want to think that I somehow "deserve" gifts, extra laziness, or the whole day for myself by myself, especially on THIS DAY.

I am probably not the worst father on earth, but I know I am not the best father I want to be, and I am beginning to understand the kind of fatherhood my heavenly Father has called me to is far greater, weightier, and higher than I knew before. I don't want to give wrong impressions that the fathers need to be a kind of superman who can and does all things right. I don't believe that's a biblical picture of a good father, unless you are the Heavenly Father. I just want to be a father who models after the Heavenly Father. And even though I myself will stumble and fall, my hope is that my stumbling and falling as well as my victories will, without ambiguity, show my child the grace of Jesus.

That's why I am making these resolutions.
I will not use the Father's Day as my excuse to be a worse father for 24 hours.
I will not make it my ambition to be a couch potato on the Father's Day.
I will not imagine that I somehow "deserve" gifts from my family members on a Father's Day.
Instead, on the Father's Day, I will meditate on God's relationship with me and His character as my Heavenly Father.
And I will do one thing that will help improve my character and self-control.
And I will think how I can serve my family better as a father.
And I will do one thing that will strengthen relationships within my family.

In short, by God's grace, I will be the best father I can be especially on the Father's Day.


(Photo credit: Hammonton Photography)

Irony of marriage issues

Marriage has been in the media a lot lately.
Here are some articles related to marriage from SMH: (Not in a particular order)

Men, women, and leadership

Marriage and law of Australia

Why new marriage vows

People taking new marriage vows

More on marriage vows


Not only the same-sex marriage is in the news (and regrettably in the Parliament as well), but most recently, the new (optional) marriage vows from Sydney Anglican church have stirred some people's emotions. It was to do with the bride's vow, which included the "S"-word: Submit. To love and submit to her husband.

The issue of male leadership often brings deep emotions and I tend to think it is a good thing. At least it shows that there's something that we aren't apathetic about in this relativistic, post-modern society. But, if what I've seen and read are anything to go by, the people in our society is angry and hateful of biblical teaching about the male leadership. The article by the Archbishop Peter Jensen attracted nearly 1000 comments in just a day, mostly unhelpful, but loudly evidencing the misunderstandings and anger of many readers.

I won't go into explaining all this myself here. I don't think I can do better than Peter Jensen anyway. But I just wanted to note that all these uproar against the biblical teachings on wife's submission and husband's leadership is quite ironic in our society. They all seem to view this husband's leadership and wife's submission as an attack against women's value and dignity, and hence an evil we need to get rid of from our society. But do we, as a society, really value and respect women? The biblical notion of male leadership is never oppressive to women nor is it degrading for women to submit to the male leadership. But how is it so much of an issue in OUR society? How are women treated in OUR society today? On a surface level, women in our society are well dignified; they have the same voting rights as men, no education is kept from women, they are not barred from work or fair pay (some still argue they are, but it is marginal and our law provides way to continue improve it where appropriate), etc. But just below the surface, our society is engaged in activities that terribly degrade women. Pornography, prostitution, overtly revealing images of female models on magazines and ads. Sexualised objectification of women is rampant in our society. Just a few months ago, promotional games for Lingerie Football League was a big success, I heard. Right near my work place, literally just outside the train station ticket gates, there's a bar where women serve in lingeries. And then there is the Fifty Shades Trilogy, which set the record as the fastest selling paperback of all time, even surpassing the Harry Potter series (according to the wikipedia).

So, why is our society up in arms about the new marriage vows? As I perceive it, our society is not against the new vows because it is so concerned about the dignity of women, nor is it trying to protect women. Our society as a whole is simply refusing God's authority over His creation, us. At the core of all the recent marriage issues is the society's refusal to recognise God's goodness in the way He created us, men and women, and rejection of His loving rule over us. Even still, the most ironic and tragic of all is that this confusion and refusal of God's design for marriage has crept into many churches in Australia.

It's not a new thing that the world rejected and hated God. That's precisely the reason why Jesus came and died on the cross, in order to create a people who will love and submit to God. We, Christians are the ones who confess that God has rescued us through Jesus' sacrifice, and now as a result, we respond by loving and submitting to God. But this marriage issue seems to be not only a debate between the Church and the World, but also a debate within the Church, amongst Christians! It is terribly sad and most ironic scene to behold, that Christians would reject God's good design.

I must admit though that I have to keep on reminding and challenging myself too. Pornography is just a click away. Women in revealing clothes are on huge billboards and also sitting just few seats away on the train. Undignified comments about women, men, and the relationship between them are too common, and my ears itch to hear the jokes and my mouth eager to tell. God warned us through Paul, "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers." (1 Timothy 4:16)
It won't do to simply assent to the biblical teaching of male leadership. It isn't enough to just agree with Peter Jensen. It must be accompanied by everyday life that acts towards women with respect, dignity, and holy love.

What sort of marriages do homosexual people want?

The issue of gay marriages has been a hot topic in recent months. A report from the bible society is worth taking a look if you are interested in this topic regardless of your opinion on this.

The School Chaplaincy Programme and the challenge

This morning, SMH reported that the national school chaplaincy programme is constitutionally invalid. It's 10pm and the article seems to have been edited to expand on the details and implications since this morning, and most significantly, its title has been changed to highlight that the school chaplaincy programme will continue to be funded.

From the edited version, which contain the most of the original content, I think there are two take-away points.

1) The court challenge against the school chaplaincy programme was basically on two grounds, religious freedom and the invalid use of executive power of the federal government. The court found that the funding agreement the Commonwealth committed itself was beyond its executive power, hence the scheme is constitutionally invalid. However, quite significantly, the High Court ruled unanimously that the chaplaincy programme did not infringe on the constitutional protection for religious freedom.

2) The father of four, Toowoomba man who challenged the programme reportedly said this:

"If we can't have a playing field within the public school system for our children that has freedom of religion and freedom from religion, I don't think there's anywhere else to go."

I am for the freedom of religion. But what's telling of what many outspoken atheists of our days, as with this man, is that they wish to have not just the freedom of religion but freedom from religion. I think it's common oversight in many people's thinking who are not necessarily atheists. But those who speak out against religion often seem to pursue freedom from religion knowingly. This is problematic because freedom from religion is most emphatically set against the freedom of religion. It is just as tyrannical as forcing everyone to comply with one and only state sanctioned religion, for atheism is not a neutral position you can take when religions are concerned. It is a religious position where you believe there is no God. So, in some sense, ironically, he was right in thinking that there's nowhere else to go. Not because our schools are overtly religious right now, but there's nowhere else to go but a religious place. Religious-ness is inherent in human nature, you cannot escape it.



I am glad that the chaplaincy programme was not unconstitutional on the grounds of religious freedom. I am glad I live in a country where freedom of religion is in fact upheld and rightly understood and applied (at least in most cases it seems) by law. At the same time, I am sad to be reminded of the fact that many people in this society want God banished from it. I am not surprised though. The bible informs me very well on how people, including myself, are set against God. But this in turn, reminds me of how God had mercy on me, a wretched sinner. How God reigns from heaven and in His grace, had turned me to see the wonder and glory of His Son. I can trust in His good plan for the whole world and continue to stand for truth and love those around me regardless of their religious stance.

Sunrise's neutrality on same-sex marriage

I felt very tired and almost couldn't be bothered making an effort to comment on it, but I did it. I'm not sure if Sunrise will publish it or even give a serious thought about it, but here's what I wrote on the issue of Sunrise giving support to the same-sex marriage.

I have learned that Sunrise decided to engage in supporting the same sex marriage. Perhaps I have been under a false, misguided impression about the nature of the show, but I had thought Sunrise was a current affair show. And it is disappointing to see Sunrise as a current affair show has publicly decided on a highly contentious issue, rather than facilitating discussions and presenting differing views, maintaining neutrality. Since Sunrise has decided on the issue, I'd like to ask a few questions. The Australian government has done a good job in removing discrimination in over 80 laws in 2008. Overseas, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the same-sex marriage is not a human right. How did you come to the conclusion that this same sex marriage issue is a human rights issue? Are you sure that you are not being pressured by certain lobbyists? If anyone's rights are at risk in this issue, it is our children's. Do our children not have fundamental "rights" to a father and a mother? Or, shall we provide such "rights" in the future by allowing a gay parent to be called a mother, and a lesbian parent to be called a father? If we did so, we would be re-defining the meaning of mother and father. It is not different with the same-sex marriage, we are not providing "rights" to same-sex couples, we are redefining the meaning of marriage. I am left to wonder that, as a citizen in this society, as a parent, as a potential viewer or the show, who disagrees with Sunrise in the issue of the same-sex marriage, what should I expect from Sunrise? Many people who are against the same-sex marriage are described as bigots by the same-sex marriage supporters. Politicians certains have been called that. What do you expect me to do with Sunrise? Am I expected to continue enjoying the show ignoring the great issue at hand? Am I expected to simply watch the show as if it is a neutral journalism? If it were, I should have been able to view Sunrise and trust the presentations. I would have gained insights and understandings of opinions that are different to mine. Now it seems Sunrise itself is no longer a neutral ground. I may need to find a different grounds for neutrality.

You might want to leave your comment too.

Against the same sex marriage bills in 250 words or less

There is a government survey about the same sex marriage bills that were recently proposed. It's a very short one. I suggest you take it and let your voice heard. The most difficult part of this one page survey was describing my reasons for not supporting the bills in less than 250 words. After struggling to keep the number of words under it, I managed to complete it in 249.

Firstly, the meaning of marriage is well understood and accepted by the vast marjority of Australians as an exclusive union between a man and a woman. It is not the government's role to re-define marriage.
Secondly, the majority of Australians do not actually want the change.
Thirdly, even if the majority indeed wanted to legalise the same sex marriage, the government must not simply bend to the public wishes and opinions. I should not doubt for a moment that the government officials are concerned with what is right and wrong, what is true and false, what is good and what is not, even if it may cost their next election.
Fourthly, re-defining marriage is not going to promote tolerance. It will only have an adverse effect where, instead of learning to live with those we disagree with, we will be forced to actually agree with them.
Fifthly, keeping the current meaning of marriage is not in any way discrimitive or intolerant action, it is merely stating what is plain.
Finally, the victim of redefinition of marriage will be our children. Upon legalising the same sex marriage, our children will helplessly and voicelessly be forced into accepting a false meaning of marriage. It is also likely to be followed with the countless cases where children will be denied a father or a mother by the same sex parents. Will we, finding ourselves in such situations, attempt to redefine the meaning of the term, father, or mother, too, then?

A train station with no lift

First, let me describe a scene from a Korean fantasy novel I read years ago. It comes from Dragon Raja (드래곤 라자) by Youngdo Lee. In the world this author created, there is a powerful wizard, a kind of equivalent of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. I've forgotten the name of the wizard, but the most memorable feat this wizard had done was not some kind of powerful battle magic or a insidious mind-controlling socery, but rather a piece of social engineering. What he had done was creating a special kind of bridge to cross a great chasm in the middle of a well-known travel route. Rather than building a conventional bridge, he had created a floating platform to move back and forth between two landing spots. If this was all he had done, it would have been just another clever trick any fame-hungry wizard could have done. What I was impressed with was the fact that this floating platform was crafted so that it only activates when there are at least 7 (I think it was 7, but the exact number is not important) travellers gathered at one of the landing spots. The hope and purpose for this, as the story tells, was that the wizard wanted the various travellers would rather learn to co-operate with each other even if it meant Orcs and Elves had to stand by together to use the floating platform. His hope was to build a society where former enemies would be accepting of each other and learn to live peacefully together.

Why this story? I was reminded of this recently when I was coming home from work. I've been thinking quite a lot about the state and meaning of community, especially in my local area. One of the things that I have been thinking ever since I moved into this area over a year ago is the fact that the Wentworthville train station does not have lifts. I saw the need for a lift immediately. Many mums travelled with their children in prams. Even though they often travelled with their friends and families to help carry their prams, I thought it would be much easier for them to use a lift. Of course it is easier. It is convenient. Occasionally, perhaps more often than I could ignore, they even had to rely on strangers helping them. I was the stranger a few times myself. If anyone asked me what we need in our local community, I had little doubt that a lift installation at Wentworthville station was a high priority.

But when I helped another mum carry her child in a pram last week, I suddenly remembered that aforementioned story. Perhaps this lack of lift isn't as bad for the community as I used to think. Just like that magical floating platform made Orcs and Elves to work together and tolerate each other, perhaps this lack of lift at our station is helping us to look out for each other. Certainly it is not convenient, both for mums and, well, strangers like myself who help them. But, when was the last time convenience helped strengthen communities? Wasn't it often the case when a great crisis and challenges, like natural disasters or war came upon a society that people worked together and community strengthened? Perhaps this inconvenience of not having a lift at the station is in fact contributing positively towards the sense of belonging in this community, however small it may be.

There's probably a safety hazard in carrying prams up and down the stairs. And there are people with less mobility who really need lifts to access the station. It probably is better to have lifts installed at our station after all. But if it is better to have lifts, it would certainly be not on the grounds that it's simply more convenient.

(Image of Wentworthville station is from Wikipedia)

(While searching for images to use on this post, I came across this article saying petition is underway! Talk about timing! So, we might actually get lifts installed after all.)

Foundation for building a tolerant loving society

Read this great article by Phillip Jensen: Britain is changing. Will Australia?

I thought for some time that discrimination against Christians we observe around the world will come to this country, Australia, soon, well, if it isn't already here.

Various European countries, although their heritage was rich in christianity, with the wayward political-correctness and confused multiculturalism, have lost what it takes to encourage tolerance and fight discrimination. And such discrimination against christians led me to suspect it will soon come to Australia, another country rich in Christian heritage, but rampantly secularised.

Perhaps, I have been lagging behind.
Phillip Jensen argues that Britain is changing in the way they think about religion and the way they want to, or need to build their society and culture. Perhaps they are finally waking up from their moral sleep that was caused by secularism. And, if his observations and predictions are going to be accurate, Britain just might be able to establish a cohesive and tolerant society we all want.

But the question remains, as Phillip posed. Will Australia regain their religious and moral footing in Christianity? Will the people who lead the public opinions understand and embrace the truth uttered by Mr. David Cameron, the current British Prime Minister:

"Those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths... simply don't understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain (in our case, Australia, of course) has confidence in its Christian identity."

Christian faith and truth lay the most solid foundation for any nation to allow its people to believe and practice their faiths whatever they be. Granted, "christian countries" throughout the history have not always allowed its people to do so, but neither have countries of other faiths. But when we actually delve into the teachings of these various faiths, you will agree that christianity does provide the foundation, the most solid foundation for building a society that is loving and accommodating.

This kind of foundation is even more acutely needed in a country like Australia where it has so much to gain from its Christian heritage already and has so much to lose if severed from it.