26 February 2014

National airline, national economy

Malaysia Airlines had a 9% rise in revenue, but a RM1.17M loss altogether.  Analysts attribute the problem to:
  • Overstaffing;
  • "lopsided procurement contracts";
  • abandon from investors;
  • a "share-swap" deal that was deemed unlawful by the Malaysian Competition Commission.
I also hear that the public suspect corruption in the system to be another reason for the loss.

Of course, there is also the issue of rising fuel costs, but all airlines face this problem.

Qantas is also struggling to make a profit.  It is expected to announce job cuts when it makes its profit report.  But the analysis is different.

Qantas may:
  • Sell off terminals;
  • Borrow money from the Australian public;
  • Cut jobs;
  • Allow more foreign ownership to the airline.
Australians are also seeing a change in the manufacturing industry, as car manufacturers Holden and Toyota have recently announced that they will pull out of Australia.  Australia fears that the massive shift in the economy could affect the country adversely.

Are major airlines having a problem that can be solved?  What would the solution be?  Does every nation need to have a national airline?  Why, or why not?

Is there a silver bullet solution to the world's economic problems?

21 February 2014

Which commandment

Which commandment do you think is the most important?  Out of the ten spoken by God in Exodus 20:1-17, which do you think we need to obey the most?

The Ten Commandments may be summarised as:
  1. Do not worship other gods, ie. other than the One True God;
  2. Do not make idols or images to represent God or worship these;
  3. Do not treat God's name lightly or disrespectfully;
  4. Dedicate the Sabbath for rest;
  5. Honour parents;
  6. Do not kill another human;
  7. Do not have sex outside marriage;
  8. Do not steal;
  9. Do not lie or falsely accuse another person;
  10. Do not desire anything or anyone that does not belong to you.
We do not see many people today following these commandments.

Many worship idols.  Such practice has become acceptable culturally, even if not in the Church.  Many use God's name for swearing.  Few have a Sabbath day of rest, now that many retailers in the cities open their shops 7 days/week.

And if they do have a Sabbath, it is sometimes not on the Sabbath day.  Does this matter?

As a society, we still agree that it is wrong to murder, but we reason self-defence or war as exceptions to the rule.  We think stealing is wrong, but we are not clear about what constitutes theft in petty cases.  A former President of the USA taught us that "greed is good" for the economy, and many now behave as though greed is normal.

Should society turn back to the Ten Commandments?  Is the Ten Commandments now out of date?  What do you think?

What would society be like if society and church treated these commandments seriously?

Whose views regarding whether we obey these commandments matter more?  Ours?  Society's?  God's?

Can we obey these commandments, truly?  How?  Or why not?

13 February 2014

Missionary experience

In Laura Parker's opinion, some things should take priority if one were to enjoy a fruitful missionary experience overseas.  She regretted, and advises newer missionaries to:
  • Concentrate on learning language first, singly and wholeheartedly; rather than to try to mix ministry with language-learning at the initial stages;
  • Take your vacation while going to the mission field - instead of trying to squeeze that in before leaving the home country, or trying to do it while on the field;
  • Take time to absorb the culture, learn your place, etc; instead of diving in and trying to be productive asap;
  • Bear in mind that community is essential - surround yourself with peers who have similar goals; rather than trying to be a solo-pioneer;
  • Expect disappointment, even though it is good to be optimistic.
Would you agree with her?  Why or why not?

From my experience, and from having many missionary friends, I appreciate the gems in Laura's advise.  I see that many missionaries would benefit from bearing in mind what she said and taking effort to follow those guidelines.  In fact
  • Some mission organisations insist that their missionaries concentrate on learning language first, before setting out to do any "real" work;
  • Some missionaries have suffered burn out, and not gotten along well with co-workers and the locals of their host country; and consequently had to return home for not taking enough time to absorb the culture or learn their place;
  • Most missionaries see the need to connect with a church in their host environment.  Some of my friends would minister with the locals most of the week and on Sunday mornings, but make time to be with other expats in an international church in the evenings.
However, I can also imagine possible exceptions to the rule.  Eg;
  • Supporters expect results and want to see results.  So taking time to be at the "dock", as Laura puts it can turn off these supporters who might think the person that they are supporting is wasting their time and money and are impatient to see them get on with the job;
  • The job is important and needs to get done; quickly and efficiently.  Especially one who has gone in to share their management skills, engineering skills, teaching or administrative skills.  Such missionaries do not need so much language and culture.  To lose a year to learn language when this is not their gift or their area of service is seen as a "waste";
  • People are perishing.  Why vacation?  Why take time to venture slowly out of one's comfort zones?  Don't we need to get the message out hastily?
  • Vacation in the home country gives the missionary a longer time to stay connected with their home culture and environment.  Vacation in the host country gives the missionary time to connect with the host culture.  Why lose it vacationing in another place that gives neither benefit;
  • Some are sent on pioneering missions.  For them to try to avoid going out solo and to stay at the "dock" is not for them to fulfill the mission for which they are sent.
 Do you agree with these exceptions?

How do you think a missionary can strike a good balance between the pros and cons of their choices?

Is there still a need for missionaries to venture out cross-culturally and pioneer new work?  Or is the world so connected via the Olympics and the Internet these days that we do not need such missionaries anymore?

What do you think?  What do you believe?  What would you do if you were called to be a missionary?

09 February 2014

Age of a child

How old must a child be before they can be trusted to walk home from school on their own?  To be at home on their own?  To ride public transport on their own?  What do you think?

In NSW, Australia, "there is no actual law in Australia that states what age a child can be left alone".  The law only states that parents need to be responsible for the child's well-being; that the child's basic necessities are cared for, and that the child is in a safe environment.  Pools need to be fenced.  There is a law against leaving children in the car, especially outdoors on a hot day.  Babies and toddlers should never be left on their own.

Community services may intervene if they see that the child is not adequately cared for.  If there is no element of care or supervision, or if the child is left in a dangerous situation.

The Community Services' guideline states that a home must be safe, and ground rules must be set, and the child trustworthy enough and responsible enough to be left on their own.  The child needs to know who to call in the case of an emergency, and how long to expect their parents or guardians to be away from.  They need to know who not to answer the door to, and what to say if the phone rings.

Rules need to be clear, and children need to know to respect and obey those rules.  A lot is left to the judgement and common sense of the parents, though.

What is it like in your community?  Are there laws that dictate the age of the children more precisely?

Apparently, parents who understand these guidelines have differing ideas about what age is appropriate for trusting their children this way.

Emily Dunn noted that:
  • Some older children act immaturely, while other younger children act maturely;
  • Some primary school children are fine to walk home on their own, but it depends on where they live and what kind of children they are;
  • Children under 5 should not be left unsupervised altogether;
  • Children younger than their mid-teens should not be left alone at night.
From the comments given to Ken Arlington and Andrew Stevenson's article, it seems that:
  •  Some parents reckon that 12 or 14 is the earliest age for leaving their children on their own, while others think that 8 or 10 is fine;
  • Much of it depends on the parents' circumstances (single mums, two working parents, etc.) and the environment (country town vs. city culture). 
I think it also depends on where the parents come from, and how long they have lived in that environment.  Eg. new migrants would probably feel less safe about leaving their children on their own while they themselves have not gotten their bearings; especially if they come from countries that seem less "safe".

Do you have any thoughts on this issue?  What do you think the minimum age of a child should be before they are given the responsibility of handling themselves independently?  What age is too old - ie. at what age would a person feel embarrassed if they have not been given such trust yet?  What do you think?

04 February 2014

Love or expose

What do we say on social media?  Why do we say what we say?  Do we think about the people we mention?  Do our words become gossip?  Do they give rise to malice?

Personally, I felt challenged while studying Luke 11:17 with some friends.  We were considering Jesus' words "every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls", when our study guide asked how that applies to our home and our fellowship.  I thought about that more broadly, and some of the things that Christians have been discussing on internet social media.

Things like Joel Osteen's beliefs about homosexuality.  Like Rick Warren assimilating Islamic doctrine with the Christian faith.  Like Brian Houston's income and tax-fringe benefits.  (I am guilty for having discussed this last one on my blog.)

Why do we talk about these things so openly?  Are we jealous of these celebrities?  We shouldn't be.  Are we exposing something sinful publicly?  (If so, then we shouldn't.  We should confront the person privately first, then bring it before the elders of the church, but not to the world-wide public.)

Is it because these guys are false teachers and the Church needs to be warned about them?

Is it because we do not realise the potential damage we cause in the public discussions that we have?  Maybe somebody outside the Church started on a topic, and Christians continued it by forwarding, liking it or sharing it.

Maybe we might have been more sensitive if the issues were brought up at church, or if the contact had been more personal, but we have not been as careful on internet social media.

Or maybe, because these guys are such big celebrities, and we are so used to every media trashing celebrities that we joined in.

Maybe the ethics of the issue were worth bringing to public light and discussing that we have been doing so - without realising the harm we heap on those people and on the Lord.

Or might it be some other reason?

What do you think?

Should sin be brought to light?  Or hidden to protect the sinner?  How much of each should we do?  What is the right balance, if there needs to be a balance?  How do we handle these, and other similar issues well, as people who wish to honour God?

Does it hurt God and the Church's credibility to discuss such things in public?  Does it hurt more if we didn't?  How does love play into these issues?