It's been a year since Cheers rallied behind local Aussie Jews at Parliament House, and we'll do it again this week. - Local Jews should not be targeted for the alleged 'sins' of Israel. They're not to blame. Fair go, mate! Racist anti-semitism would be unthinkable to my Aussie mates. Yet apparently it’s growing in Australia to a rate three times that of Germany in the 1930s! Time we stood up against this - Never Again Is Now. 
Time for an update. Many Cheers crew actively support Worldview Australia's ministries. WVA now has three camps per year: the Youth Leadership Camp for teens and young adult leaders; PreView for younger campers; Family Camp for all ages. (All camps were full and blessed everyone as hoped, by Jesus work amongst us all.) Plus WVBites open lectures at Woodvale Baptist’s hall. And visits to various towns, schools & churches, with messages that inspire people to think and live from a Biblical Worldview. 
We continue to meet at the Westlakes' around the Bible, & prayer, & praise. Topics included: Matthew's Isaiah prophecies and worldview; Suffering well - 1Peter; The Father Heart of God; Faith challenges from Deuteronomy.
We pray around the table on Thursdays.
We work out our faith in our various contexts: residents' association, schools, homes, workplaces, social settings, networks. We pray for and look for who Jesus wants us to share with. Last night I welcomed a person of newfound faith to Worldview Bites. 
At Cheers, we're all learning to be part of "The Worship Team," in all we are and do. 

Nationalists need to be much more specific about the VALUES they want to maintain in Australia
“Australia first,” on its own, is an exclusive standard because only we can adopt it. Therefore, it seems a racist /prejudiced kind of nationalism - it excludes based on things that can’t be chosen.
​However, if we champion our critical values, anyone can choose those regardless of nationality, ethnicity or even religion (in many cases). Values become an invitational standard.
Q: Which values set creates social cohesion in Australia? 
A: Those consistent with:
- an originalist reading of the Australian Constitution;
- a Judaeo-Christian reading of upholding ‘natural/common law’, freedom to do the right thing;
- servant leadership (ie ministries not departments);
- seeking the blessing of Almighty God (to prevent tyrannical rulers who imagine themselves answerable to no-one);
- secular government with no religious test; 
- Menzies' We Believe statement(s). 
These values make for uniquely civil societies. They’re the only values that make space for freedom of conscience. That’s why they were chosen for the foundations of Australian society at Federation. Around those values, we can gather people from any background, even people not committed to the Bible that underpins them. 
For example, the value of the separation of state and church in our Constitution:  
Section 116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This value ultimately came from a Biblical heritage: people being equally valuable because we’re made in the image of God (Genesis 1); so we all should be respected, not forced against conscience (Romans 14); yet we know humans are fallen (Genesis 3) and will try to exploit others for self-interest (repeatedly throughout history). Therefore, a person’s religion (which at the time largely meant Anglican or Catholic) should not prevent people from participating in the decision-making processes that affect the whole civic body. This value safeguards the participation of everyone, non-believers included.

Therefore, such values must be protected. 
​- How should we respond when, for example, Sharia Law seeks to take over some Australian land? We protect the VALUE of open civic participation, and the law of this land. Sharia does violate the VALUE, by making a religious test for civic involvement.
- What if Socialist governments declare that private, religious institutions or citizens must teach and adhere to new, non-Biblical State moralities? We protect our VALUE against imposing any religious observance, which is what the State is doing in that instance - imposing its neo-religious morality and prohibiting the free exercise of others. We defend the relevant VALUE of freedom to uphold 'natural law.' (Claims that socialism is "a-religious" are merely semantic distractions from the main point of Section 116. The fact that for socialism the state IS its religion, tells us that socialism is incompatible with the kind of democratic state established at Federation.) 
- When state schools impose transgender education on minors? We should be able to make the case for the higher VALUE of truth: gender is about biological reality, not fluid, mis-identities, and to teach otherwise does more harm than good. Defend the relevant Aussie VALUE.

There are many such values. Here are perhaps the main contested value-laden topics of our time:

• Supernaturalism vs Naturalism - inclusion, not reductionism. 
• A-political unions vs Union partisanship with criminal associations - persuasion, not pressure. 
• Limited Government vs Big Government - responsibility & assistance, not state dependence. 
• Defence vs Pro-CCP - defend freedoms, not atheistic statism. 
• Privacy vs Surveillance - reasonable public security, not totalitarian monitoring. 
• Conserve-&-adapt economy vs Renewables economy - unbiased science, not fund-contingent activism. (Too much manipulating statistics by activism.)
• Family support vs State childcare - parental responsibility, over state care. 
• Truthful definitions of marriage, parenthood, babies’ rights, palliative care - human sanctity, not reductionist materialism. 
• One people vs Dual sovereignty - unity & forgiveness, not oppression/vengeance.
• Property ownership vs Neo-Marxist land-rights - responsibility, not dependence.  
• Merit vs DEI - responsibility, not handout or lowering standards.
• Natural justice vs Social justice - equal opportunity, not rigged outcomes.
• Anti-terror vs Pro-terror activism - defend, not destroy.
• Sustainable & values-compatible immigration vs unsustainable immigration - sustainability, not unsustainability.
• Citizen freedoms vs State control - freedom, not tyranny. Responsibility, not oppression.

Australians should invite others to join our protected values set.
1) defend the values we already know we need to uphold, from being overrun;
2) resolve how to forgive and live peaceably with people of different value-sets. (Such civility is also from our Judeo-Christian heritage.) 
​
Make a list: 
1) What do you mean? - Which values are we to defend? 
2) How do we know they're true? How are they defended? 
3) What differences do they make to our society? These differences can build up over time. 

Then invite people to gather around those socially cohesive, Aussie values. (Aussie in the sense that Australia federated around them, but they’re not exclusive to Australia; they should be universal.) Even though we may have to resist people who violate them, they constitute the good standard by which anyone could join us, the critical difference being not race or nationality, but whether they accept such protected values. 

PS - A better way
I confess that trying to identify the core values from scratch can be hard - indeed, it's impossible without a worthy reference point. A much simpler way exists - go to the worthy reference point.
​The better way to learn the values is directly from their Source. “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” 
This involves the Person of Jesus. And "persons can forgive you, whereas values cannot - values can only judge you,” (Glen Scrivener, The Air We Breathe.) ​The impersonal/unforgiving nature of values is why, when people reject the Person of Jesus, they tend to redefine the values in ever more self-serving ways. We must be vigilant about lowering the values bar... 
Meanwhile, for people not yet willing to seek Jesus, we can still meet around our values critical to respecting our shared humanity and community. 

(This is a repost from 2013, with updated links.)

One can easily research Jesus’ resurrection. Mainstream media ignores it, but maybe just because it's such old news. :-) It is a matter of public record. Anyone can find sufficient historical evidence. Given the importance of the Resurrection, look into it for yourself - and live in the light of its implications.

Often you can follow the footnotes to primary sources:

• Josh McDowell, “A Ready Defense,” “More than a Carpenter” and other resources
• • “Evidence for the Resurrection” by Josh McDowell
  • “If I Had Faked the Resurrection” by Josh McDowell
• Jesus has Risen: The Evidence! by Sean McDowell
• John Dickson, “Life of Jesus” Book and DVD
• William Lane Craig, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles
  • “The Guard at the Tomb” by William Lane Craig
• http://www.leestrobel.com
• Bill Bright, http://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/jesus-and-the-intellectual/index.htm
• “Quotes on the Resurrection” from a variety of authors
• “The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?” by Pat Zukeran
• “A Response to The Lost Tomb of Jesus Documentary” by Charlie Campbell
• creation.com has this useful video: https://creation.com/en-au/videos/CML-did-Jesus-really-rise-from-the-dead?
• Even Wiki has enough.
• Adrian Warnock, “Raised With Christ” pdf.
  
• And enjoy this 6 mins from Lutheran Satire's Donall and Conall.
  

So enjoy looking around. And don’t worry when you bump into dissenting voices – they wont kill your faith. Their interpretations are not strong enough, and they’re pretty poor at reading history.
For example they sometimes simply reject any texts written by Christians. This unfairly rules out any source by anyone who was convinced by the evidence, regardless of the quality of their history. Ridiculous! Imagine if Luke (a first-rate historian) had been agnostic when he set out to write his “orderly account for Theophilus,” and then became a believer during his research. Under this standard his writings would be admissible before he believed, but suddenly inadmissible after he believed – the exact same material! It’s clearly dishonest to rule out historical material on the grounds that the writer believed what they wrote to be true!
So don’t be bluffed - be informed.