Paying to keep all the animals in our lives happy.

On the one hand, it's good to know that your meat has been able to
hang out on a big paddock,
munch on oranges, play with the dogs,
and walk your kids to the bus stop.
On the other hand - sob - poor Kev. Rest in pieces




Many of us spend money making our dogs and cats lives more pleasant[1]. We feed them good food. We pay vets to keep them healthy and happy, to the tune of $2.5 billion a year. Pets cost us $6 billion a year overall. That’s about $2500/year for the average dog. A cat is cheaper at $1700/annum. Half of us buy them special treats for Christmas and their birthdays.

And good on us for not being neglectful pet owners! We accept that it costs more to keep a pet happy and healthy. I’m guessing, but I’d say you could keep a dog alive, but miserable, for about $500/year, and a cat for about the same (minimal, basic food; locked in a cage; basic worming but euthanasia for any that get really sick).

So we’re paying about $2000/year to keep a dog happy and healthy, and $1200 for a cat.

How many of us are willing to spend extra money keeping the other animals in our lives happy and healthy? You know, the ones we eat?

If McDonalds are right, none of their customers are. That’s why they don’t use free range chickens or pigs[2].

If we shop at the “Big Two” we can get chicken breast for $12/kg. If our conscience is slightly twinged it will cost us $13/kg for the “RSPCA approved” kind, which is a far cry from free range[3]. Fully free range, chickens, who are presumably fairly happy until the brutal production line slaughter, are @16/kg.[4]

So if we ate a kilo of chicken breast a week, it would cost $200 more to make the chooks relatively happy: able to roam outside, dust bathe, eat grass and forage. We have free range chickens, they are full of personality, adventure. They complain and pace relentlessly if we have to keep them locked in for a day or two.

Have you seen those pictures of miserable chooks in battery layer cages? They cost us $2.79 a dozen versus $6.35. If we eat half a dozen eggs a week, that’s $185 extra to let the chickens who are making our eggs have an actual life until they get ground up for pet food.

If the effect of watching Babe has worn off for us - and who doesn’t love bacon – a miserable pig is $15/kg, compared to $22/kg for its free range counterpart.  

 A kilo of happy pig a week would set us all back $350 per year.

So two kilos of happy meat and a dozen happy eggs a week would set us back about $700. Quite a lot, but a lot less than keeping a dog, or even a cat happy.

Jesus called us to do for others as we would have done for us if our positions were reversed. Most of us readily get that this applies to our pets. We wouldn’t let them suffer, or stick them in a tiny cage for their whole life just because it’s cheaper and easier. How do we so easily skimp on the other animals in our lives, who arguably give us even more?

If you’ve forgotten what animal suffering looks like in Australia, or would like to get your church thinking about it, here's a short reminder, in the context of a prayer of confession which points to a more hopeful future...

[1] http://www.ava.com.au/news/media-centre/hot-topics-5


[2] https://yourquestions.mcdonalds.com.au/questions/6015


[3] http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/farmers-attack-coles-marketing-scheme-backed-by-the-rspca-to-deliver-healthier-chickens-to-consumers/story-fnihsrf2-1226800132011


[4] From store web sites, prices accurate at time of writing

Final words at Bellingen Uniting Church.

Final reflection at Bellingen Uniting July 2013

On biblical diversity, women and men as God's image, Gay marriage and what really matters instead, not judging, and proper Christian fundamentalism.

A slightly polished up version of my spoken notes.  Not perfect by any means but good enough.

Readings Colossians 2:6-19 and The Lord’s prayer (either version)

Colossians 2:6 encourages us to continue to walk in Christ (often translated “live in”).  This travelling metaphor isn’t something the Uniting Church made up.  Jesus- follow me.  Paul talks of faith as a marathon, Colossians - walk in Christ.

Paul was always leaving messages for congregations.

What message would I want to leave with you?

What final dot points?

One is that it’s exciting, empowering, and necessary to read the scriptures, the biblical witnesses, seriously, not just devotionally and certainly not just literalistically.

To have a hard look at Colossians, for example, and notice that a lot of it doesn’t sound like Paul.  For example this next bit about the fullness of God dwelling in Christ.

In the letters which everyone does agree are written by Paul, there’s none of this divine Jesus stuff.

Which is why most scholars think Colossians was written later on, by someone else in Paul’s name, as Christian thinking continued to develop and diversify.  Faith is always on the move.

So we end up with the Synoptic gospels- Mark, then Matt and Luke (and Paul) in which Jesus is Messiah and Lord,  and John’s gospel and Colossians which attributes greater divinity to him.

The diversity of opinion about who Jesus is (his nature), is accompanied by diversity in opinion about what his life means.  How it all works.  As the lawyer put it to Jesus, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

So we have Paul: Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins.  This is magnified in Hebrews: Jesus the high priest and ultimate, perfect once for all sacrifice.  We have John: the need to believe in his name.  And the synoptics, Jesus puts it quite differently.

The lawyer asked, “what must we do to be saved?”  Jesus’ answer:   Love God, self and neighbour.  Do this and you shall live. 

In the Lord’s prayer he says forgive others.  “Forgive us our sins,” we should pray, “ as we forgive those who are indebted to us.”

Mark, Matt and Luke all contain explicit expansions of that claim by Jesus- being forgiven is caught up in forgiving.

So, salvation: was it all done for us as a sacrifice (as Paul argues) or as a legal satisfaction in heavenly court (as Colossians says), or do we have to participate (and Jesus argues in Mark, Matt and Luke).  Is it about beliefs (John) or actions (synoptics)?

My point isn’t to settle the argument, but to remind you that the arguments are there, in scripture.  Being a disciple means joining in the argument, praying and discerning, not simply memorising answers and trying to believe them.

Of course we do have to decide, and what we decide will shape what we think the gospel is and what we are inviting people to, but we decide knowing that there is a diversity of contrary opinions, or at least other emphases.

I don’t want to settle the argument, but I will say that for the most part I’ve tried to focus on Jesus’ understanding of his nature and mission, and our responsibilities, as far as we can work that out, rather than Paul or Colossians or John.

It is strange that some churches listen far more to Paul than Jesus when they try to work out who Jesus was and the point of his life.

“Your kingdom come” Jesus invited us to pray.

Not the kingdom of the world, of power and privilege and violence.  But the kingdom of leaders being servants, the first being last, of love of neighbour including and perhaps especially the neighbour we’d happily see burned out of house and home.

As Colossians puts it, Jesus divested himself of the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them.

Usually translated here as Jesus “disarmed” the rulers.  But the word more often in scripture is translated as divested.  Separated himself from, disassociated with.

UCA in NSW recently decided to divest itself from the fossil fuel industry.  To separate itself. 

“If it’s wrong to wreck the earth, it’s wrong to profit from wrecking the earth.”

We live in a world where we’re pretty enmeshed in dozens of systems we don’t like and would change if we could, but maybe there are things God is calling us, you, to divest ourselves from.

When our grandchildren or great grandchildren look back on this time in history and ask us what we did about it, what will be the things they most want to interrogate us about?  What will be most want to be able to say we divested from?  Resisted as people of faith?

Instead of just leaving that with you, I made myself think about it.

The first, from above, is obviously that I resisted various arrogant, narrow, alienating and blatantly false attempts by some Christians to say that their simplistic, selectively collected summary of the faith was the Faith.  That the bits of the bible they likes was The Bible.

It should hardly be an issue anymore, but clearly we continue to affirm, in so many ways, that women are less important and competent than men.  In the OT reading for today Hosea is told by God to marry a whore and get her pregnant as a symbol of Israel’s wanton ways. 

That God would be willing to use a woman as an object in such a way, and the constant comparing of Israel to a slut wouldn’t have batted an eyelid back then, hopefully it would now.  The idea that women are stupider than men, found in the New Testament, because it was Eve who was fooled and not Adam, hopefully wouldn’t pass our lips serious in worship today.

But we do constantly give the idea that God is more like a bloke than a woman in our singing, which is a big chunk of our worship, and our prayers and so on. 

It is impossible that this doesn’t have a negative effect on girls self image.  It gives a false teaching about the God the Spirit, who is of course no more male than female.

God as father made sense in a world where fathers commanded allegiance and loyalty.  As did Lord.  They are metaphors, no more. 

The amount of angst caused by positing out the obvious, even as I heard it resulting in some of you being interrogated around town as to whether the minister has _really_ said God was a woman (which of course I didn’t) would be funny if not so disturbing.

Did the minister _really_ say women are as much the image of God as men.  Well, yes he did.

Even worse than equating women and men appeared to be trying to persuade the church that of all the issues facing us in the world today, whether two men or two women marry is way down the list.  Personally I’d go much further than that, and affirm that whether a couple is treating each other in the way Jesus taught is more important than their gender. 

But for those who disagree on that, surely a church which wants to defend families should be much more loudly heard on issues like providing sanctuary to families fleeing war, challenging a world where 1% of families control most of the world’s wealth, making other families starve.  In a town where unemployment and poverty is so high, government policy on welfare and tax breaks for the rich will have far more impact on people’s well being than their sexuality.  I’m reliably informed that one man in town owns 70 houses!  That is far more important for the dynamics of this town than his sexual preference.  

Our other reading for this week was the destruction of Soddom.  In popular culture because of the men’s homosexuality.  In the story because of their same sex rape of Abraham’s guests (putting aside the disregard Abraham showed for his own daughters).  But in Ezekiel we read God’s judgment of Soddom:

“She (or course it’s she) had pride, more food then she needed, and prosperity, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”

It follows that if God was going to judge Australia along the lines of Soddom, if a decision to allow gay marriage even registered, it would be way down the list behind being a proud nation; with plentiful food; and yet not aiding the poor and needy.” 

The church should be preoccupied with managing the earth’s resources in such a way that families of the future can supply their needs, and I’d add the families of the many other species we share this planet with.  Gay marriage will have far less impact on families and individuals than the latest measurement which shows we have exceeded 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.  

Our great grandchildren will be far angrier, will suffer far more, if we fail to support groups like 350.org and beyond zero emissions, than if we fail to stop gay marriage.

The author to Colossians finishes by reminding the congregation that people will always tend to focus on the small stuff, and be quick to condemn those who don’t agree with them.

Instead, stick to the fundamentals:

Walk in Christ, the head: the source of our movement.  Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.  Love yourself.  And likewise, love your neighbour. 

Most especially the one you despise, at least in part because like the loving Samaritan, they may be the one to show you the path to eternal life.

Christmas or Capitalistmas, Santa or St Nick?

disclaimer: only the links are slighly humorous in this one!

“We will stick with old St Nick,
Santa is baulderdash!”

So ends the carol, Little town of Bellingen

St Nicholas was third century European bishop, who decided that his vast inheritance should be spent meeting the needs of the poor.  He therefore redistributed his wealth quietly amongst those less fortunate than himself.  In this he was connecting with the tradition of the early church described in Acts 4, where those with land and possessions sold everything, for the apostles to distribute amongst the poor.

This short-lived mode of Christian community was itself an echo of Jesus’ teachings about wealth, and his challenge to the rich to sell their possessions and give to the poor if they wanted to follow him (Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 18).  Luke 14:33, addressed to the “large crowds,” is a corker, “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.” 

So gift giving in December was originally a celebration of St Nicholas’ successful response to Jesus’ challenge to the rich.  On December 6^th, St Nicholas Day, other rich people gave, if not all their inheritance, at least something to the poor. 

This socialistic blip faded when the reformers edged out the saints, and their saints days, throwing their weight behind December 25^th as a celebration of Jesus’ birth.

That should have been fine, since Jesus was the original inspiration for St Nicholas’ gifts to the poor anyway.

Yet somehow his “birthday” has become a day for increasing poverty amongst those who cannot withstand the constant barrage of “show your love with cash” advertising, even though they don’t actually have much cash, and have to use borrowed credit.

Whilst the relatively rich amongst us do still tend to give to charity, proportionately more money is spent on close relatives, who tend to either reciprocate, or stand to inherit our wealth one day anyway.

Christmas has been replaced by Santa Claus day, or Capitalistmas.  Rev. Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir remind us that Santa Day is a reversal of St Nicholas Day.  Now the poor give up their health and right to a decent wage so that the rich can give each other cheaper presents.  They tell the story of Sarah Liu Xianzhi, who was detained for her Christian faith and sent to a “re-education” labour camp for six years, where she manufactured earphones and Christmas lights.

All of which is enough to sap my energy as I sit here trying to finish this article, as waves of mild shame and guilt wash over me.  I haven’t bought Christmas lights for years, since I decided that all those stars up there are better, but we still use our old ones.  And we are amongst those adding to the increased spending on electronics this December (though not technically for Christmas day). 

Our family isn't rich enough to easily pay more for the most ethical option of everything we buy.  We aren’t poor enough to feel justified in ignoring those ethical and sustainable shopping options.  We’re not the richest 1% nor the poorest 70%.  I suppose that puts us in the “one step forwards two step backwards 29%.”

The 29% of the population with enough resources to feel like we should try to build a better world, but not enough to make it easy.  The 29% which is required to pull the pendulum further back from Capitalistmas to Christmas...


So how about this Christmas, we all stay in the black?
Like the sun weathered skin of that Nazareth chap
Who went on about money and the dangers of wealth
For those trying to nurture their spiritual health

Give gifts of love, they won’t send you broke
Lots of big hugs (come on, even you blokes!)
To those who want one, offer a kiss
Celebrate Christ-, not capitalist-mis

(from: Cash or Pash)

How did you go this year: what percentage of your day was Christmas, which percent Capitalistmas?  Make your confession (or crow about your success) below...

Thanking God makes me squirm

Thanking God often makes me squirm. 
Yet I’m regularly called upon to do it in my line of work.

Looking out across a sea of salad and meat, “the Rev” is often expected to thank God for the food before us, and perhaps for the earth from which it came.

But why?

Why would God have given us lunch when we could easily live without it for a day, and when others around the world need it so much more? Is it right to thank God for the death of the pigs and chickens arrayed before me, when I know how much they probably suffered getting there, and doubt that God was pleased about any of it? Should I be thanking God for lettuce trucked 4000km to our table, or juice which comes from South American oranges?

I feel more like I should be apologising. Maybe I could try this prayer at the next gathering I’m invited to:

“Let’s say Grace. God, I’m sorry there is so little grace on this table – so little good will and merciful kindness. Sorry about the cheap battery eggs. Ditto the juicy little veal calves. Sorry about the farmers going broke because these imported oranges are cheaper. Sorry for all the pollution from trucking the bananas down to Sydney and then all the way up here again. 

Sorry for all the pesticides and fertiliser killing the reefs. Sorry about the bits we didn’t manage to wash off that are about to hammer our livers. Sorry we’re apologising to you instead of those we’ve wronged. Sorry chickens. Sorry cows. Sorry farmers. Sorry Earth. Sorry that we’re not likely to do it any different next time, because it’s hard and we’re on a budget. Sorry for being so sorrowful on this happy occasion. So we offer a heartfelt thanks to the people who took the time to lovingly prepare the food, and we are thankful for the time to come together in your presence to enjoy each other’s company.”

Wimp that I am, I usually stick start at the last sentence.

Can we really be thankful, when we continue to trash the gift of Earth God gave us because it’s cheaper and easier than sustaining it?

Is calling the Earth “God’s gift” actually the problem?

The creation story in Genesis 1 - which wraps up with Noah in Genesis 9 - presents humans as the only creature in God’s image, granted dominion over Earth. First the plants are given us for food, and then, through Noah, every living thing is delivered into our hand. Even if we don’t believe the story anymore, many of us have adopted its apparent worldview: our right to dominate the earth.

But this was a story written in captivity, under the thumb of the king of Babylon, who claimed to be in the divine image, and to have dominion over all things and all people. Genesis 1 is a defiant story of human dignity by a defeated and oppressed people. It was written to demote the king of Babylon, not to elevate humans over earth.

The much older tale of humans and earth is Genesis 2. Here God creates an earthling, the Adam, for the sake of the garden which is about to appear. To serve it and protect it. Then this lonely guardian is given the gift of animals, not for food, but for companionship.  

According to Genesis 2, instead of giving thanks at our meals, we should ask whether the earth would be thanking us for the way we gathered our food. We should ask whether the God who created us for the delightful garden instead of the other way around, would thank us for a job well done. Would God say, for example,

“Thanks everyone, this is great, it’s a pleasure to be here amongst you. I loved watching the chooks foraging yesterday, and seeing little Georgie totter down for the eggs this morning. That ham came from a delightful little troublemaker: thankyou for ending his time so quickly. You only just got the lettuce from the community garden in time didn’t you? Summer is such a pest for lettuce. I know you miss the oranges, but you’ll love them all the more when they’re back in season: and don’t the bananas and blueberries smell great! Two four, six, eight- bog in, don’t wait!”

I didn't get back to the, "what does it mean to thank God for this food when so many don't have any?" dilemma.  Does that make anyone else feel uneasy?
Are you a Genesis 1, Genesis 2, or evolutionist kind of earthling?

Vanity, vanity- all is vanity!

I guess Ecclesiastes sums up blogs for me.
 
In vain do I subscribe to them every now and then, because I never get around to reading them (except for http://lectionarysong.blogspot.com/)

Ironic, then to have created one. Sure it was free, but why?

I've been challenged in preparing ecofaith for this week to revisit "do brave deeds and endure," my old (loathed) school's motto. This time in the shape of trying to write some small pieces called God Bothering, and see if the local paper will run them.

If they do, the plan is that this blog will become the place where people respond and continue to do some "Backyard Theology"

If it's 2014 when you're reading this, and this is still the only post, clearly I failed and I'll happily release the blog name to you.