Posts Tagged ‘Commentary’

Wanted: agents of change

Thursday, May 3, 2012

My visit to Tonea School in India

Chelsea Mitchell
Bachelor of Arts student
Avondale College of Higher Education

No roads lead to Tonea. The boarding school in the state of Jharkhand has 357 students and although well-established by Indian standards, there are still cracks. One of the cracks: lack of child sponsorship. Sponsorship funds the child’s education—not just the cost of tuition but of board, bedding, food, books and uniform, too. Credit: Chelsea Mitchell.

What you see first are children. To your left and to your right. Children in matching clothes, with matching hair styles, yet with very different stories. The second thing you see is their modest bows and pressed palms. One after another, in a 200-metre domino effect, they greet you in this way. The third thing you see is a banner. It reads, “We love you!” You can’t help but adore them, too. Welcome to Tonea School.

We’re in the state of Jharkhand in eastern India. We’ve driven five hours from the capital, Ranchi, and we’ve reached the end of the road. We’re lost, again—there are no roads into Tonea. The boarding school has 357 students and although well-established by Indian standards, there are still cracks.

The first: staffing. The school employs 11 teachers, only four of who are qualified to teach. Funding for the school is at a low level, so the school struggles to attract qualified teachers. One of the few ways to increase funding is through sponsorship. Not-for-profit Christian organisation Asian Aid, which partners with Tonea, is working to improve the quality of education.

The second: infrastructure. Asian Aid has installed two pumps to ensure the students have access to clean water. It has also built a girls’ dormitory and furnished it 40 bunk beds. But there were more boarding students than beds. Students had been sleeping four to a bed or on a blanket on the concrete outside until November 2011, when Avondale College of Higher Education’s student mission club COSMOS raised enough money to fund the building of a boys’ dormitory.

The third: sponsorship. Only 83 students at Tonea are sponsored.

You, too, can be an agent for change at Tonea.

The school needs more bunk beds. It needs a new dormitory to accommodate all the girls, rather than half of them. And it needs a new shower block for the girls, who currently wash under disjointed tarpaulins.

Asian Aid also needs more sponsors. Sponsoring a child through Asian Aid funds the child’s education—not just the cost of tuition but of board, bedding, food, books and uniform, too. And education is one of the most powerful tools of change in the world.

The students at Tonea are desperate for you to respond.

Chelsea travelled with four of her International Development and Poverty Studies classmates and lecturer Brad Watson to India and Nepal at the end of 2011.

www.asianaid.org.au

 

Fighting Mac

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The Anzac hero who saved not took life

Associate Professor Daniel Reynaud
Dean
Faculty of Arts and Theology
Avondale College of Higher Education

Captain William McKenzie.

Ask Australians to name the most famous Anzac of World War I and most will probably answer, “Simpson, the man with the donkey.” While Simpson is a household name, the soldiers who fought in the war would give a different answer: Captain William McKenzie.

McKenzie served as chaplain of the 4th Battalion. An enthusiastic Christian minister who stood for evangelism and against booze, brothels and bad language, he might seem an unlikely candidate for most famous Anzac of the Great War. But in 1920, McKenzie’s popularity reached its zenith—it would take him more than three hours to reach Sydney Town Hall from his office on Goulburn Street, just three blocks away. People mobbed him just to shake his hand.

A Scottish-born Salvation Army officer, McKenzie’s tireless energy on the soldiers’ behalf earned their respect, while his charismatic personality won their love. He was a born leader with a tremendous sense of humour, a childlike innocence, integrity and constant cheerfulness.

In Cairo, McKenzie not only preached against the brothels but also went to the red-light district at night and literally dragged men out, putting them on a tram back to camp. He expected a knife in the ribs from the brothel owners for ruining their business.

On Gallipoli, McKenzie won the undying respect of the Anzacs. Like other chaplains, he conducted burial services, often under shell fire. But he went further, finding chocolates for each man, or cutting steps into a steep part of a track at night.

At the Battle of Lone Pine, McKenzie should have been in the rear trenches, but he followed the charge, carrying just a spade. He needed it: over the next few weeks, he sorted the living from the dead and buried 450 men. For his actions, McKenzie received the Military Cross.

McKenzie led something like 2000 to 3000 men to Christ during the war. This is what one of his letters, written in Egypt, records: “I realise the nearness of His presence and something of the sweetness and power of His great salvation. I confess that I cried myself to sleep last night or in the early hours of the morning after long meditation over the sacrifices and death of the Christ of God. This I think helped me to read the scriptures and preach the truth better at this morning’s parade . . . when for half an hour some 2000 of us there sang of the Cross and its meaning and pondered over the story once again.”

When McKenzie returned to Australia in 1918, thousands came to see him in every town and city he visited. In Sydney, his feet never touched the ground from the train to the town hall. In following years, at Anzac Day parades, his hand bleed from the sheer number of handshakes he gave.

Some have said the Anzacs were not religious. Perhaps, but McKenzie noted on Gallipoli that many showed an interest in God. He said: “Men realise as never before that the most manly thing to do is to worship and glorify God.”

The discussion we had to have

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

A reflection on the worldwide theology of ordination study

Dr Ross Cole
Senior lecturer in Old Testament
School of Ministry and Theology
Avondale College of Higher Education

Credit: Lagani Gairo

I have been invited to contribute an article to a worldwide discussion of ordination and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Why the review and why now?

The ordination of women to pastoral ministry has long been topical. For some people, any distinction in the way we recognise the pastoral calling of male and female members seems contrary to the radical inclusiveness of the gospel. For others, erasing distinctions is a misguided chasing after contemporary causes.

The discussion is important, but for decades we’ve overlooked fundamental questions about ordination. Does it exist in the Bible? If so, what is its significance?

I’m studying the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to refer to a calling to office. I’m also studying the practice of the laying-on of hands. I’m looking at whether ordination should come at the beginning of ministry or later as the fruit of the community’s recognition of a divine calling. Is it symbolic, or does it add to ministry?

The discussion is worldwide in part because the Adventist Church is one of the few international denominations. To be ordained as an Adventist elder or as a deacon is to be ordained for service in the local church. To be ordained as a pastor is to be ordained for service at the worldwide level. I like the sound of that. Yet in practice, who has the cultural and linguistic background to minister in any and every region? Under church policy, a pastor shouldn’t publicly minister in any region, unless approval has been sought and given by the administration of the church in that region. Indeed, approval has to come from each successive hierarchical level, up to the one that encompasses the region visited and that of the pastor’s employing entity. Then approval must be sought all the way down to that entity. Is this procedure really about global ministry, or is it about global management?

In the 1970s, Adventist scholars were consulted about the appropriateness of ordaining women to ministry—they saw no problem. I sometimes ruefully wish the clock could be wound back so things could have gone ahead without further debate. But maybe coming to terms with what ordination is about is one reason we have had to wait.

Culture will play a part because it has something to do with everything, both for how we live our lives, and for how people in Bible times did. This doesn’t mean there isn’t eternal truth. Yet eternal truth inevitably comes to us in cultural terms. The problem is not when we use culture to understand the Bible and apply it to our day. It’s when we use it and deny the fact, even to ourselves. I suspect those who claim the loudest their interpretations are culture-proof will be the ones who are the most bound.

Unity versus uniformity? Diversity versus diversion? I expect the ordination discussion to be profoundly absorbing and enlightening. And not just because of what may be said about ordination!

 

My generation is better than your generation

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Dr Andy Nash
Professor
School of Journalism and Communication
Southern Adventist University

I once asked 25 college students a question: if you had a choice, would you rather grow up when you did or when your children will? The students were born between 1987 and 1989.

Of the 25, none said they would want to grow up in the next generation. Even when I reminded them of the advances in medicine and technology, they held firm: they wouldn’t want to grow up in the 2010s and 2020s. No way, they said, shaking their heads in unison.

“Why not?” I asked.

“Everything’s so materialistic,” said one.

“It’s like all kids want to do is play video games,” said another.

“But that’s what everyone thinks about your generation!” I protested.

“At least we knew how to play outside,” said one.

“So, you’re saying the culture is going downhill,” I said.

“Yes,” they replied.

“OK,” I said, “we’ve gone about 25 years into the future and you’re saying it’s worse. Let’s go 25 years the other way.” I wrote two dates on the board: 1962 and 1937. “This is when your parents and grandparents were born. How many of you would rather have grown up when they did?” The students paused. “How many?” I repeated.

Three students raised their hands—two of them confidently.

“Three,” I said. “Three of you would rather have grown up in your parents’ or grandparents’ generation. That leaves 22 of you preferring to grow up when you did.

“You know what you’re saying, don’t you?” I said. “You grew up at the perfect time in history. Things were gradually improving until your time. Then everything fell apart.”

We laughed. I told them I would have answered the same way. I loved the era—the 1980s—in which I grew up. The music of my high school years is the greatest and the clothing styles are the coolest, too.

Most of us view “our era” as the perfect balance between yesterday and tomorrow. Life was “simple,” yet we had modern conveniences we couldn’t imagine living without. For me, it was a personal computer. For these students, it’s Facebook and mobile phones.

We talked about the attributes of each generation. “Let’s take your grandparents,” I said. “They’re patriotic; loyal to their country and to their churches. Right?” The students nodded. “They’re hardworking and frugal. They had come out of the Depression.”

I paused. “And they might be racist.”

The students’ expressions changed as they recognised the truth of this statement.

It’s natural to feel loyalty to our generation—to the good as well as the bad. While college students today tend to be less racist than those who went before them, their generation has its own problems, including a sense of entitlement and disrespect for authority.

“The challenge each of us faces,” I said, “is to keep the good and throw out the bad.” For some of us, that can be as hard as admitting those cool college clothes just aren’t cool anymore.

Andy Nash is a presenter at the Manifest Creative Arts Festival, March 28-31, 2012. www.artsmanifest.info

 

Why we write about Creation

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

New book helps answer questions contradicting biblical teachings

Dr L James Gibson
Director, Geoscience Research Institute
Loma Linda, California, USA

We need more written material about Creation, particularly about the scientific challenges to the biblical account. I co-edited Understanding Creation: Answers to Questions on Faith and Science (Pacific Press) with Dr Humberto Rasi, now retired, a former director of education for the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church, to help with this need.

The book will add to the discussion in the church about Creation, but Humberto and I didn’t want to be polemic; we’re pragmatists.

Students and young professionals say they are asked regularly to explain their Christian beliefs of Creation, particularly about fossils and the Flood. We took 20 frequently asked questions and had 20 authors provide scholarly answers in language anyone can use.

Half of the book addresses philosophical and theological questions, including the supposed conflict between the Bible and science, the science of evolution, Darwinism and morality and living without all the answers. The other half of the book addresses scientific questions, including the Big Bang, radiometric dating, plate tectonics, dinosaurs and fossil records.

The biblical account of Creation is a vital part of the gospel message because it challenges human pride and emphasises the power and goodness of God. Many aspects of the account have implications for Christian thinking. Here are three:

  1. God is freely active in His Creation

Science is built on the suppositions nature is governed by fixed laws and God does not intervene with these laws. Many scientists fear a decrease in the trust in science as the standard of truth if God did intervene. This is an offense to human pride. If God causes miracles, we should accept Scriptures as God’s primary revelation and reject claims science is the most reliable source by which we learn about Creation.

  1. Humans were created better than they are now

Despite being made in His image, our first parents did not trust God. This lack of trust brought death into this world. God’s response: to implement the plan of salvation, sending His son, Jesus, to earth to die in our place. Many people oppose this view of human nature because they have not found evidence of superior human ancestors or a world without death. The revelation of humans as sinful, fallen beings is also an offense to human pride.

  1. The seventh-day Sabbath

Observing the seventh-day Sabbath symbolises our faith in the biblical account of Creation. The Bible gives no other reason for keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day. Observing the Sabbath also symbolises our fallen nature and our dependence on God for knowledge of our origins, our nature and our destiny. This is an offense to human pride, too, because it reminds us of our tendency to get things wrong.

Understanding Creation helps Christians proclaim the gospel by dealing with questions underlying its logic—the biblical account of Creation, the bringing of death into the world and the provision for Christ to redeem and restore us to relationship with Him in a new creation.—Adventist News Network