This posting is from my father’s history of the den Houtings in Australia. If you want to know about my early years, then you’ll enjoy this read. I did consider deleting the embarassing stuff, but to honor my dad I have kept it complete.
Two thirds of Brisbane population surveyed believed Australia should increase aid
What is this survey?
On August 28, 2005, an informal survey by members of the Micah Challenge group conducted at the Cabarlah Markets in Toowoomba, found that at least half of the people surveyed had little knowledge about the amount of overseas aid that Australia contributes.
They were asked, “What do you think about the amount Australia gives to overseas aid - way too much, too much, about the right amount, too little, way too little, or don’t know?” 52% said they thought we give too much or way too much.
They were then asked, “What do YOU think would be an appropriate percentage of the national income for Australia to give to overseas aid?“ Many people who said we give too much or way too much said we should “only” give 1-2%. This is actually five to ten times more than the 0.26% that Australia has been giving until recently.
The results of this intrigued us so much that we decided to ask Santiago Ayala and the Department Of Social Sciences at UQ to help us run a formal survey to assess whether these results could be duplicated over a larger area.
We developed an in-depth survey, and from the 8thto the 10th of December 2005, surveyed over 140 people in:
• Browns Plains (Federal Electorate: Rankin),
• Indooroopilly (Federal Electorate: Ryan),
• Chermside (Federal Electorate: Lilley), and
• Brisbane City (Federal Electorate: Brisbane).
What did the survey find?
• Not one single person said Australia shouldn’t give aid to poor countries.
• Almost 90% (89.7%) said it was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ to give aid.
• Two thirds (66.9%) of the people were actually in favour of increasing our aid.
• And almost 80% of these (76.9%) were in favour of increasing the amount of aid to meet the goal proposed by UN of 0.5% or more of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• A majority of people (54%) would prefer aid to be distributed through Australian NGOs.
• Where nongovernmental agencies are not an option, then people would prefer that aid be distributed through governments rather than businesses. A majority say governments needn’t be democratic but should be stable (52.8%) and transparent (59.2%).
• While people recognise giving aid improves Australia’s international image (86.7%) and international relations (82.9%), the majority do not think aid should used as P.R.
• An overwhelming majority of people said aid should be directed towards countries that are poor (87.6%), have poor social services (91.5%) and poor health standards (89.8%) or suffering from natural disaster (94.7%) and post-conflict trauma (85.1%).
Why have we produced this document?
We particularly want to encourage the Australian Government to increase its provision of aid to foreign countries to half of one per cent of our GDP to help meet the Millennium Development Goals. We also want to encourage governments to provide aid to the areas of most need, rather than to those countries where provision of aid is considered politically expedient for Australia.
If the Government says that it can only increase aid if the electorate supports the increase, we thought we’d provide it with some evidence about what some people had to say about the idea of increasing aid.
What are the Millennium Development Goals?
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of eight goals to reduce global poverty, which were endorsed by all the members of the United Nations in 2000.
The eight goals are:
1) to halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015;
2) to achieve universal primary education by 2015;
3) to promote gender equality and empower women in all levels of education;
4) to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015;
5) to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by three-quarters by 2015;
6) to have halted and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases by 2015;
7) to ensure environmental sustainability by 2015 by:
• integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies,
• reversing the loss of environmental resources,
• halving the proportion of people without access to clean water or adequate sanitation,
• significantly improving the lives of at least 100m slum dwellers; 
to develop a global partnership for development based on:
• fairer international trade, financial and governance systems,
• a resolution of unsustainable debt,
• a special focus on the least developed countries, small island states and landlocked countries,
• increased and poverty focused aid, and
• sharing technology.
What is the Micah Challenge?
The Micah Challenge takes its name from the prophet Micah, who wrote, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God” Micah 6:8. It is a movement of people from many different faith communities round the world committed to work together to pursue justice, be passionate about kindness and walk humbly with God. Micah Challenge is associated with the Make Poverty History Campaign.
The Micah Action Group in Queensland, (the Queensland branch of the Micah Challenge) is a collection of members from across a range of Christian church organisations which are committed to the Micah Challenge. More information about the Micah Challenge is available at www.micahchallenge.org.au.
Conclusion
The following report contains the data and analysis drawn from the survey. We think it contains a powerful message for the Australian Federal Government and a powerful impetus for a community that would like to see our country commit itself wholeheartedly to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The message of the Make Poverty History Campaign is that if we take action now, we can meet the MDG’s. The aim of the Micah Challenge is to inspire people to be agents of hope, and to encourage our national and global leaders in their role in securing a more just and merciful world.
Introduction
Writing a paper about the concepts of pastoral theology and pastoral care, invites you into an explosion of concepts. While the notions clearly come from a particular background, new meanings, understandings and developments are emerging in the contemporary context. However the diverse range of writings in the area also provides an opportunity to examine potential resources, in order to develop an awareness of your own theological approach to pastoral work.
This paper will start by naming the foundational material of the pastoral theology/pastoral care paradigm. It will then examine in particular, three examples of current academic debate, namely: the nature of interdisciplinary engagement; feminist and womanist critiques; and the communal and contextual aspects of the paradigm.
In the light of these particular themes the second part of the paper explores the theology of pastoral work, concentrating specifically on the notion of compassion as found in the work of Nouwen and Pembroke. Their writings will be used to explore some of the insights required for self care for pastoral workers; and the implications for the practical outworking of pastoral care.
Introduction
Stanley Hauerwas wants the Christian church to be the “New Jesus”.
By claiming that the church is a social ethic, Hauerwas focuses on how the church should be rather than on what it should do. Behind this statement lies his approach to ethics, which seeks to define what this corporate social ethic - “the church” might look like. He finds the boundaries of his idea of church within the narratives of Jesus and the Christian church, and from this conceptualises a “corporate Jesus”, namely the faithful manifestation of the peaceable kingdom.
The implication therefore is that if the church can be transformed, the church will BE a social ethic – the “New Jesus”.
However, Hauerwas’ ideal vision of church is limited to his own narrative framework and as a result his approach appears to lose the idea of a transcendent Christ in the world.
The Feminine Spirit: Recapturing the Heart of Scripture
By Lynne Bundesen
Jossey-Bass, 2007
RRP $26.95
(Clicking on this image will take you to Fishpond.com where you can purchase the book online)
I can’t figure out who this book is written for. It’s one in a series entitled the “Woman’s Guide to the Bible” but it is not one that is likely to be picked up by any church study group soon, and it’s certainly not for a book for female biblical scholars.
So I figure that it could be written for women who are interested in exploring Christianity, but are not too excited about an image of God that involves a really, really angry dad. And to that end it does provide food for thought, but unfortunately it tastes a little bit too like diet lime jelly for my liking.
Bundesen starts the book with what I can only describe as a brave and audacious approach. She names the fact that every version of the Biblical text that is read by you, (unless you are an ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek scholar) is a translation. Fine so far, it’s the end of page one and I’m still with her.
But by page two it’s all beginning to get a bit worrying. She provides her own translation of the Hebrew term Ruah Elohim, (Genesis 1:1-2), which is usually translated as Spirit of God, or God’s Spirit. With no authoritative source for her claim as far as I could find, she argues that this phrase can be grammatically classified as a feminine plural form of noun. God, she argues, is described as a feminine Spirit.
