The Straw Man is about to burst!

The straw man mock-up of the Religious Discrimination Bill is getting stuffier with every passing day.

It wasn’t enough for Judith Ireland and Luke Beck to write a couple of fictional pieces last week for Fairfax. Their collation of hypotheticals have been mistaken by some readers as fact, but in the end, their scaremongering ended up belittling religious and irreligious Australians alike!

DkoLqKDV4AA5nEn

Apparently, the straw man has yet more room to fill. A string of articles this week (once again thanks to our friends at Fairfax) have continued to make hay out of the Religious Discrimination Bill. This overstuffed straw man is about ready to burst, even before they even finishing preparing to light the bonfire.

Take, for example, The Royal Women’s Hospital. According to reporting in yesterday’s The Age, they are arguing that the Religious Discrimination Bill will lead to Doctors refusing to perform abortions and even to abortion freedoms being stifled.

First, Doctors are already protected by law to refuse to perform an abortion. Second, and contrary to the straw man, this Bill is primarily aimed at protecting already existing freedoms of religious Australians, not introducing new rights. Third, if abortions laws are tightened in the future, it won’t be the consequence of this Bill but because Australians once again acknowledge that unborn children are human beings and therefore must be treated with due dignity and worth.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby has joined the fray with a piece in The Age, arguing that the Bill will divide Australians and not unite them.

What is Michael Kirby’s evidence that this will be the case? For the most part, he entertains a similar line of hypotheticals that have already been paraded in the street. There is however one concrete example. He mentions the case in Victoria where a Doctor allegedly refused to prescribe contraception or advice to a patient about IVF. It is important to note however that this alleged incident has nothing to do with the drafted Religious Discrimination Bill. This case has arisen under existing laws in Victoria and not because of a Bill that has yet to be even debated before the Parliament.

It is worth noting the kind of language Justice Kirby employs to describe the kind of person who is advocating for the Bill:

“it actively facilitates intolerance and will work to divide rather than unite Australians”

“support those who use religious belief as a weapon against non-believers.”

Is this really the state of mind and heart of religious Australians? We are wanting legal protection for the purpose of using our beliefs as a weapon? There is more…

“This is something obsessive religious proponents demand”.

Of course, any person who supports this Bill is obviously ‘obsessive’ and unreasonable and a fool! For a decisive knock out punch, Justice Kirby concludes by bringing out one of the big words,

“We should be vigilant to preserve it, not erode its legacy by enacting laws to appease an extreme minority.”

Are our mainstream Christian denominations now to be described as ‘extreme’? Are Anglicans, Presbyterians and Baptists, ‘extreme’. Extreme in what and how? For affirming what Christians have believed and practised for 2,000 years? For cherishing ideas that have created the freedoms and societal goods that we enjoy today in this country?  We all know how appalling extremists are, but labelling people in this false way is incredibly slanderous.   I understand, resorting to this kind of rhetorical game can be effective and persuasive, but it does nothing to aid truth-telling and it only further exemplifies the fracturing of civil society. Of course, there are some religious tools in our community; I don’t see anyone denying that. But this narrative being spun by Kirby and others is simply disingenuous.

As I wrote earlier in the week, I’m not saying that the Bill cannot be improved. My preference would be that we live in a society where such legislation isn’t required.  It is important to remember why this Bill is even being considered: it is because of the unreasonable and hardline secularists who will not tolerate Australians who do not fully endorse their narrow way of looking at the world. The same people who cry out for love speech are calling fellow Australians bigots for not supporting their causes, and are going to great lengths to silence these Australian and even remove them from their places of employment.

Wouldn’t it be advantageous and refreshing to see disagreeing Australians discuss these matters with civility and sitting down together without spitting coffee at each other?  I remember one such example. Back in 2017, Andrew Hastie and Tim Wilson sat down with a Coopers beer in hand and chatted about their differing position on gay marriage. It was polite, honest, and respectful. Yet within hours, social media was alight with hate, and with photos of people destroying bottles of Coopers and with pubs declaring that they would no longer serve the Aussie beer. That’s the problem, we no longer wish to talk across the table or to show kindness to those who disagree with us. There is only one flavour in town and that is ‘outrage’.

Whether it is Michael Kirby or Luke Beck, the media, and the rest of us (including those who support some kind of religious discrimination bill), we really need to put the straw man out to pasture and rediscover those out-of-fashion virtues, kindness and authentic tolerance. The Religious Discrimination Bill is aimed at going some way to hold together this fraying society, but I do hope that wherever it finally lands, Christians will keep speaking truth in love and to love our neighbours whoever they may be. Yes, sometimes we will fail to do so, and so we should ask for forgiveness. We should hold to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If our society so determines that this is extremism, then so be it. Let us be extreme in loving God and in wanting good for others

 

 

Australia is wrestling with Religious Freedom

The fight against the Religious Discrimination Bill is heating up with a submission from some of the nation’s powerful Unions and with a bank telling everyone to love their way or go away.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Industry Group have written a letter to Attorney General, Christian Porter, warning the Government about perceived flaws in the Bill.

I am not saying that the Bill is perfect and that improvements cannot be made. I personally wish there was no need for a Religious Discrimination Bill in Australia, but hardline secularists continue to threaten religious freedoms and raise the temperature against religious Australians such that a Bill has become important, if not necessary. 

So what are the Unions’ concerns? According to Dana McCauley, the primary issue relates to “a risk of harm to the staff and customers of Australian businesses”.

“Employers are concerned the provision will conflict with their obligation under workplace laws to provide safe environments free of bullying and harassment, risk damage to their reputations, harm productivity and make it harder to recruit and retain staff.”

The argument goes like this: this Bill will give religious people license to be mean and say horrible things to other workers and customers and employers won’t have the power to stop it. But is this the case?

Associate Professor, Neil Foster, has detailed that “The Bill does not authorise all religiously motived” acts, and second, the Bill does not create rights to new forms of horrible speech, but it does protect freedom of speech that operates against the background of already existing rights.

“The “right” to make offensive remarks, is a right which already exists as part of our long tradition of protecting free speech, even speech which we don’t like and which upsets people. That is why we need a right to free speech- none of us are tempted to censor speech we agree with!”

There has been a tidal wave of pressure to succumb to the new sexual code of conduct, and I can’t but help conclude that the ACTU and AI are just the latest to succumb. To be fair (relying on the SMH’s reporting), they are not against the Bill altogether, but those parts that they believe will undermine the employer.  Part of the issue with this tidal narrative is that religion is seen as a threat to business and as a threat to social cohesion. In reality, it can serve as a constructive partner. It is a little odd that Australian businesses are wanting to squeeze out religion when globally the world is becoming more religious.  As Dr Brian J. Grim (President of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation) has observed through his research,  “religious freedom is good for the economy, good for society, and good for business”.

Underneath this wave is a strong current to strip religious Australians of their freedom to hold and speak of their beliefs. This is no mere hypothetical; the proof is in the Israel Folau case, and in many other cases that have not gained attention by the media. Remember, it was not the tone of Folau’s Instagram posts that led to his dismissal (even I took issue with his tone), for as Rugby Australia’s CEO, Raelene Castle, admitted, even quoting the Bible would have been cause for Folau’s sacking. 

There are many workers who speak with me in private, employed across professions and industries, and who have been frightened into silence by their workplace, afraid they will lose their job if they dare mention their faith in Jesus Christ.  To be more accurate, the fictitious Jesus who embraces the new sexual morality is permissible, just not the Jesus who subscribes to the Bible. 

Both the ACTU and AI have an invested interest in this discussion and ought to be heard. I get it, anyone believing the straw man arguments may well express concerns over religious workers causing “workplace bullying, aggression, harassment including sexual harassment, discrimination, or other unreasonable behaviour”.  In reality, such cases are unusual. Is there no room for discussion and disagreement over life’s biggest questions, either in the workplace or on people’s private social media accounts? This rhetoric about harm and bullying too easily becomes political speak, cloaking what is really going on under the guise of justice and human rights. 

In some quarters, bullying is now code for, this Christian doesn’t support gay marriage. Or, that employee doesn’t join in workplace rituals for LGBT celebration days. And, I don’t like the article my colleague shared on his Facebook page and so I’m reporting him to the HR department.

Lovespeech

Let’s look at the ANZ’s new messaging. ANZ has released a document entitled, “Your Guide To Love Speech“.

“During the 2020 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival, ANZ is taking a stand against hurtful language and has launched #LoveSpeech – a national campaign to educate Australians on the impact that hurtful language has on the LGBTIQ+ community.”

“By changing hateful messages to give them new meaning, we hope to create awareness, understanding, and unity. That’s what Love Speech is all about.”

I assume the document (with its accompanying posters) are mandatory in ANZ workplaces. I also assume that ANZ board are comfortable for staff to share this messaging outside of work. Indeed, ANZ specifies that this is a “national campaign to educate Australians”.

I am all for ‘love speech’, but what ANZ mean by love is, the unqualified affirmation of the new sexual ethic. And what they consider hate speech includes what are reasoned and deeply held beliefs for millions of Australians. It is quite extraordinary but ANZ feel so confident about their posturing that they can explicitly state that mere expression of a belief in heterosexual only marriage is a form of hate speech.

My question to ANZ is, what will happen to employees who cannot get behind this campaign and who hold a different opinion? What is to become of employees who are discovered expressing a different opinion? What will happen to the employee who either at work or in public voices disagreement with this campaign?

Are we to conclude that affirming gay marriage and transgenderism is an inherent requirement for employment at a bank?

It’s not as though ANZ, Rugby Australia, and some Unions hate religion, they just can’t accept religion that doesn’t fully embrace their virtue signalling.  This is about controlling religion (specifically Christianity). This wave of authoritarian secularism pervades our education systems, now employment, the public square, and may soon pour inside religious institutions and churches. We are fools to think otherwise. The gods of secularism will not tolerate an alternative, even if means dismantling the faith upon which the structures and fibres of our great society were built. Religion is to be controlled, much like during the good old days of Ancient Rome or in today’s Communist China, where Christianity is permitted so long as all the non-communist bits are deleted. This would all sound crazy and like the ravings of religious nut stuck on hyperbolic drive, except that Australia has already begun witnessing this cultural control. 

And that is why the Religious Discrimination Bill matters. The Bill aims to preserve the kinds of freedom Australians have enjoyed for decades. This is about maintaining a healthy pluralism and retaining an essential ingredient of a civilised society.  It is difficult to assess the Union’s letter through the lens of a newspaper article, for the spin may not accurately represent the written concerns; I don’t know. Is there warrant for further consideration of the “Folau clause”? Perhaps so. Of course, we should want the Bill to be as fair and useful as possible.

The broader issue is of course, that the culture has shifted. Increasingly, religious people are being informed that their opinions are not welcome in the public square. It is not acceptable to believe in heterosexual-only marriage. It is only okay to share views that fully conform to the narrow and intolerant sexual agenda that is being preached in most almost every sphere of life in contemporary Australia.  The Federal Government is acting to introduce the religious discrimination Bill for the very reason that religious Aussies are losing their jobs and being squeezed out of schools, because of their religious convictions. 

Whatever the outcome of this religious discrimination bill, I hope and pray Christians will continue to follow the ethic give to us by the Lord Jesus Christ: to honour him and to respect those among whom we work, to be gentle and kind and to give reason for the hope we have and to not shy away from the good news we have come to know and cherish above everything. 

What I’ve observed from an exchange with Peter FitzSimons

Last night Peter FtizSimons tweeted an article that was published in the Fairfax newspapers, written by Monash University’s, Associate Professor Luke Beck. With the headline, “Religious discrimination bill backfires on Christians”, Beck mounted a shallow and rather silly case in which he not only threw paper-thin arguments at Christians but also managed to insult everyone else.

I wrote a letter to the Editor, which was published in The Age yesterday (see below), and I tweeted my response to Fitz last night. He asked a couple of polite questions which I responded to with the brevity that Twitter only permits. But then, with a mountain of surprise as thick as thin a slice of toast, the retorts came thick and fast from twitter’s moral mob.

Following this brief exchange with the Fitz, I have been reminded of the following:

1. Ignorance of Christianity is sky high in Australia.

2. Churches failing to deal with sin in their midst have done enormous damage to the Gospel

3. Churches who protect bad theology and promote false versions of Christianity have caused huge social confusion and damage.

4. The sins of the past are not forgotten

5. Lots of people must be learning their history from the back of cereal boxes or from National Geographic rather than from, you know, actual history. (I speak as someone who studied history at university)

6. People are prepared to whitewash the historical record in order to sustain their point of view.

7. People are getting their information about the religious discrimination bill from the media outlets who propagate their already formed views. Responding to or challenging misconceptions is like trying to roll a boulder up a mountainside.

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_1722

What should Christians do?

1. Own our sins, confess them and repent of them

2. Stop protecting and promoting garbage theology that comes from Marx’s cell in hell

3. Don’t whitewash history. Some people have done horrendous things in the name of Christ

4. Remember the Gospel is good news. It really is true and good and beautiful and life changing.

5. Become more like the Lord Jesus: Love God and love our neighbours

6. Do good to those who don’t like you

7. Twitter is a poor platform for exchanging ideas and having meaningful conversations

Finally, I’m reminded of these words spoken by the Lord Jesus,

“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7)

 

 

My letter in The Age (Feb 21):

Luke Beck’s attempt to scare Christians away from the religious discrimination bill amounts to shooting blanks; noisy but harmless. Firstly, Christians are quite used to people insulting their faith. It’s been happening for 2,000 years and there’s little reason to think that will change.

Second, I suspect many unbelieving Australians will be surprised by Beck’s small opinion of them, suggesting that they would stoop so low that “Employers will be able to ridicule Christians in the workplace” and “Doctors will be able to humiliate Christian patients.”

If you’re mean to us, we’ll be mean to you! While Beck seems content to attribute that modus operandi to our society, I much prefer Jesus’ ethic, “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”.

 

 


The Age published a response to my letter today (Feb 23):

“Pastor Murray Campbell knows his theology but perhaps not his history. Christians, over many centuries, have not merely insulted, but tried to obliterate the faiths of others. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of witches, missionaries as agents of the colonial power in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia…the list goes on.

It’s difficult to reconcile the pastor’s words of love and tolerance with the history of the institutions he represents

All over the world, Christians have attempted to wipe out cultural and spiritual practices and even committed genocide in the name of their God. Take a look at the record. Christians are not the victims here

Susan Green, Castlemaine”

3 brief responses to Susan:

Hi Susan

  1. Like I mention above, I studied history at university. In fact in both of my degrees I have studied lots of history.
  2. Your examples go some way to demonstrate the kinds of issues I have raised in this blog post about popular history telling.
  3. Perhaps you could have read something I’ve written before declaring my ignorance of history.

Meditating before the KAWS

Melbourne may think of herself as a secular city but she remains very religious.

This Saturday the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) is being turned into a spiritual centre, with hundreds of people paying to gather around a KAWS sculpture for meditation.

The NGV’s newest major exhibition consists of works by the Brooklyn based pop-artist, Brian Donnelly. The exhibition includes a series of really tall cartoon-like sculptures made of bronze. I can’t make up my mind if they’re re-imaging Elmo, Mickey Mouse, Krusty the Clown, or a synthesis of several different stuffed puppets. They are a fascinating combination of cute and sad, of adorable and melancholy. These sculptures are impressive and thoughtful.

 

7bab1563ce0f4cc912f8a3b9c2ef798b

photo from NGV

Sitting around the largest of the sculptures, titled, Gone, will be 350 paying guests who are hoping to lose their minds and find themselves. The two forlorn figures represent the emotions that accompany loss. I am not quite sure what role Gone will perform during the meditation. Perhaps it is a symbol for the exercise, to lose ourselves or to excise the losses we experience in life.

The event is a collaboration with Manoj Dias of A-Space, a yoga and meditation teacher based here in Melbourne.

In an interview for Broadsheet, Dias shares his journey into meditation:

“Manoj Dias had a career in the advertising industry. He worked 70 hours a week. He drank four cups a day. And then Manoj Dias had a panic attack.

His doctor prescribed anxiety medication, but that didn’t sit right with him. So a friend recommended a yoga class with a Buddhist monk. Though Dias grew up in a Buddhist household in Sri Lanka, he’d lost touch with the traditions when his family immigrated to Australia. Despite his distance from meditation practice, he struck up an immediate connection with his new teacher. “I practised with him every day for five years and he’s still my guru today,” says Dias.

Dias and Lynch created A-Space with two intentions in mind: help people connect with their own thoughts, and therefore connect with others. It’s a space to slow down, be introspective and “genuinely feel connected to the person next to you”, says Dias.

“Meditation has given me a moment to genuinely feel something – that what I’m doing right now is really meaningful.”

 

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_1a50

The NGV is advertising the event with this befitting tagline by Friedrich Nietzsche,

‘Invisible threads are the strongest ties.’

It is apt because, like Nietzsche who was a nihilist, meditation is often an expression of nihilism. The aim is to disconnect yourself from the material and from life’s desires. You overcome by avoidance. You find yourself by disengaging. Peace is experienced by removing all the distractions and troubles and responsibilities that usually absorb our attention.

Buddhism and Nihilism share a common thread, and that is life is ultimately a sardonic joke, an illusion to either escape or will eventually consume us. This NGV event will no doubt be popular because it pulls on peoples’ desires for inner peace. True peace isn’t found by disengaging with the world or by introspection but looking to the one who was crucified and who raised to life. If Gone is the end of the story we are indeed lost and a few moments of quiet introspection won’t offer lasting consolation.

Ironically, according to the NGV’s description of Gone, the work is reminiscent of Michelangelo’s, Pietà. This sculpture by Michelangelo depicts the lifeless body of Jesus Christ, cradled by Mary.

If only we would grab hold of that reference point and meditate beyond ourselves and look to that crucified one, not via a sculptured image but in the words that reveal God to us. My contention is that the crucified Christ offers a more substantive and satisfying answer for those who are searching for peace and hope.

Glen Scrivener puts it this way,

“The answer to suffering is not detachment but attachment”

Instead of disconnecting from the pressures, sufferings of this life, Jesus came to us and experienced them for us. The God who exists didn’t ignore or wish away the depths of human despair and depravity, but he bore the sins of the world on that cross.

When the Apostle Paul entered the great city of Athens, he noted the culture’s obsession with spirituality. In order to cover all the bases, the Athenians had built a statue to ‘the unknown god’. Paul announced and reasoned with the city’s population, evidencing that God has made himself known and that He is greater and better than our imaginings.

 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:24-31)

This news may have fallen out of favour in parts of Melbourne today, but surely it is worth revisiting. Melbournians are searching.

Christianity doesn’t dismiss the idea of meditation altogether. The Bible speaks of a form of meditation that has value. This meditation does not look inward, but outward. It doesn’t involve emptying the mind but filling the mind with God who has made himself known. Christian meditation involves communing with God by remembering, reading and understanding his words, promises, and works, and through this, we truly find ourselves and the peace and hope that each of us longs for.

“I gave an account of my ways and you answered me;

    teach me your decrees.

Cause me to understand the way of your precepts,

    that I may meditate on your wonderful deeds. 

My soul is weary with sorrow;

    strengthen me according to your word.” (Psalm 119:26-28)

“Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.” (Joshua 1:8)

The KAWS exhibition in Melbourne is a timely reminder of humanity’s sense of lostness and of that craving to find peace, love, and hope. The answer is not in ourselves and to accept the black hole that is nihilism but to discover the God who made us with design and good purpose, and who entered this world and embraced suffering and death that we might come to know him.

Rain, the ABC, and the heresy of mentioning prayer

The ABC has been caught out in the rain and subjected to a torrent of tweets demanding a retraction. They ran a story about the rain that is falling in NSW with the blasphemous headline, “Prayers answered as NSW rainfall extinguishes 74-day Currowan bushfire”.

Thousands of comments have poured down over Twitter and Facebook, expressing anger at the ABC for daring to use the word, prayer. 

“Prayers have no place in journalism. #ThisisNotJournalism”

ABC news… prayers had nothing to do with it. Please delete this offensive tweet. #FreedomFromReligion

“Prayers answered” ???

Seriously  @abcnews get this religious propaganda out of your lexicon. The rain came because science. Nothing more nothing less.  Sure as shootin’ not because someone asked nicely for it.”

I suspect the choice of wording had nothing to do with actual belief in God, as though the editor was personally thanking God or encouraging readers to do so. Like millions of Australians every day, we borrow words and ideas from Christianity to express our own thoughts. In this case, someone at the ABC probably thought they were being cute.  It’s a rather innocuous and generic way of noting thankfulness that the bushfires have been extinguished.

But in Australia today, this cannot be tolerated. References to God cannot be permitted unless it is in the pursuit of mocking religion. Religion (and specifically, Christianity) is to be ridiculed by the media in the most celebratory and obnoxious ways, but no one is to dilute the purity of worship to secularism. Introducing the word prayer is sacrilege. It might encourage someone to, you know, actually pray to God. Worse still, maybe there’s a religious person working for the ABC and they’re trying to brainwash the country with subtle suggestions of Divine power.

Our friendly neighbourhood secularists have reminded us, even an irreligious use of a religious word must be opposed. I couldn’t help but turn a little smile as I noted that some of the people yelling at the ABC today were, only weeks earlier, defending the ABC for its evenhandedness and balanced reporting.  But now, they are demanding to know the name of the editor who approved the headline; no doubt to shame them and call for their immediate dismissal.

Screen Shot 2020-02-09 at 4.54.02 pm

Wait till the outrage mob realise that there are Christians working at the Bureau of Meteorology and that some of our country’s Climate Change scientists are also Christian! Yes, that’s right, scientists who also pray. Scientists who believe in God and in the Bible!

The ABC has now repented of their grievous sin. The headline has been replaced, but our moral judges are not yet satisfied. What guarantees will be put in place so that this never happens again?

In contrast to this irrational and over the top reaction to the ABC, I think prayer is great.  We should thank God for the rain, for the rain has put out dreadful fires. We should also ask God for safety for those who may experience flooding, just as we have done so with the recent fires.

 

Screen Shot 2020-02-09 at 4.58.14 pmA friend of mine who lives in the Blue Mountains faced the threat of bushfire only a month ago. This weekend he called the SES for sandbags to help protect his home from floodwaters. Fire and flood remind us that the world, as wonderful as it is, is not the safe and secure environment that we long for. As we have been reminded in recent weeks, humanity has done much to harm the world; it is, to use a biblical word, cursed. It is both a place of extraordinary beauty and terror. In the current cultural climate, we mostly focus on the things we don’t like. Australian society is filled with perennial complaining and whinging, and in that, we often forget the tremendous blessings that we enjoy and the good that we can see and hold.

Many Australian have been praying for rain, both to put out a terrible season of bushfire and also to break the drought has gripped so much of the country. Has God answered those prayers?

Sometimes our words carry more truth in them than we realise. The angry mob who have bullied the ABC this afternoon will probably not thank God for the rain. They may well be grateful, but to whom?  Thankful for the meaningless weather patterns that have combined to create the splashes of water on our gardens and in our rivers? Without God, surely the weather is just nature’s mechanics at work without reason and meaning? The clouds did not form for our benefit, to help us in any way. There is no ethic or design; it’s just water. That’s all it is. The very notion of thankfulness for rain is an illusion, an evolutionary mistake in the human consciousness that causes us to pray and thank a God who does not exist.

Or maybe, as the Apostle Paul once told a crowd in the city of Iconium,

“In the past, God let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” (Acts 14:16-17).

Serving up more Spin

We have moved beyond peering through the looking glass. We’ve entered a crazy new world where left is right and wrong is good and the impossible is normal. Sky is grass and the ocean is space. Nothing is what it seems to be, and questioning the new morality is the only heresy.

The only problem with this new world of topsy-turvey is that it’s given a good shake every 6 months or so, and then once again all the epistemological furniture and our moral certainties are thrown into the air. And it’s not the sanest or smartest who catch the debris and reorder the room but the loudest and most militant.

Case in point, the recent Australian Tennis Open. First of all, what an amazing tournament. Second, in yesterday’s SMH Peter FitzSimons threw a volley at Novak Djokovic for touching the umpire’s foot during the final. If Fitz’s issue was simply that Djokovic committed a foot violation and should be fined for it, that’s fine. But you see, Fitz’s fury doesn’t depend on right and wrong, and rules of any kind, but on whether he supports the activity of the person. Remember, it was only a few days earlier when John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova unfurled a political banner on one of the courts in Melbourne Park. It was a protest against Margaret Court, with Navratilova also attempting to grab the umpire’s microphone in order to speak to the crowd and media. In that case, Peter FitzSimons quickly came out in support of the two former tennis players, who not only broke tournament protocols but brought the game into disrepute.

He tweeted,

“If your last name is McEnroe or Navratilova and you are on a tennis court, you have no need to “hijack” a tournament. You have earned your spot as your sport’s most respected voices.”

Court

In contrast, days earlier Margaret Court was invited to a special evening during the tournament where she was recognised by Tennis Australia for her famous Grand Slam of 1970. On Court, Margaret Court did not use the event to promote her personal beliefs. She said nothing about her views on sexuality which have been denounced in some parts of the community.

The upside roundabout of modern Western thinking isn’t done yet. While Martina Navratilova got away with her anti-Court banner and her online letter was republished or quoted by major media outlets all around Australia and the world, it was only last year that she was sacked by an LGBT group. While serving as an ambassador for Athlete Ally, Navratilova criticised transgender athletes and claimed that men competing as women are cheats and being unfair. Hmmm…so Margaret Court name must be removed because of her views on sexuality, and yet Navratilova, according to the latest definitions of phobia is also a phobe and a bigot. Indeed, how on earth did Tennis Australia miss that one when they ranted about their inclusivity policy?  How can we support and praise the on-court protest by a former player who publicly speaks against transgender women playing tennis at the highest level?

Thankfully, amidst all these double faults being served by our social and sporting commentators,, there was some great tennis played both on and off the court. As journalists tried to grab quotes from players about all kinds of social and moral issues, some players like Novak Djokovic and our very own Ash Barty, saw the spin coming and avoided it with skill and grace; well done.

All this demonstrates these three simple points: One, intersectional politics and cancel culture are intent on smashing their way into every pocket of life. Second, it is an ultimately hypocritical and destructive ethic. Three, our society needs a better way of evaluating moral confusion and for relating to the other.

I remember the words of Jesus,

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

That sounds pretty enticing. Just maybe, there is more wisdom and compassion, more goodness and truth in Jesus Christ than we realise. Of course, Jesus remains no.1 target of the cancel culture, but just perhaps, we could look at the world the right way up and see that he is not an opponent to be beaten but the one who gave his life to be our advocate. Recognising such liberating news requires a doss of humility and sadly, few in this age of rage feel able to accept what Jesus says. My suggestion is this, while the intersectional mob throw balls at each other, step aside and take a few moments to consider the One who offers, ‘truth that sets you free’.

 

 

The Curious Case of Australia Celebrating Professor John Newnham

As Professor John Newnham was awarded Senior Australian of the Year for 2020, the irony may have missed us at first.

Professor Newnham has dedicated his professional life to saving the lives of babies. He is an obstetrician who has given years to researching preterm birth, with the purpose of finding ways to prevent harmful early birth.

According to the University of Western Australia website, Professor Newnham’s,

“enduring research and clinical passion has been to unravel the mysteries of life before birth, how health and disease throughout our lifespan may result from events while we are a foetus, and how common illnesses and disabilities can be prevented by strategies during pregnancy.

In 1989, Professor Newnham pioneered the Raine Study, which involved recruiting 2900 unborn babies at 18 weeks of pregnancy and then following their health, and that of their family, for life. This was the world’s first pregnancy-focused lifetime cohort study and remains one of the most successful medical research studies to have been conducted in Australia.”

Professor Newnham’s drive to care for Australia’s youngest is laudable and deserving of national attention.

Screen Shot 2020-01-26 at 6.34.58 am

Here is a quotation from Professor Newnham from the UWA webpage, that summarises his aim,

“As a result of modern obstetric and newborn care, many children now survive preterm birth but for others, there may be lifelong disability. What drives me to complete my work is the desire to see an increase in the number of healthy babies born each day, because life before birth means something.” 

Amen! Yes, it does. “life before birth means something”. Now, I don’t know the man nor what believes about the big questions of life, God and the world, but I admire someone whose career is devoted to giving babies a better chance of life.

By now, I’m sure you will have also noticed the irony. Let the nation celebrate a man who is saving the lives of unborn children! In contrast,  over the same timeframe, Australia has witnessed the ‘progressive’ juggernaut blast through abortion laws in many of the nation’s States. Last year the NSW Parliament legalised abortion. In 2018, QLD gave license for the unborn to be killed. In Victoria, abortion is legal even up to the point of birth. When these legislations were presented to the Parliaments, it’s not as though Australians spoke of this terrible act with reticence and a heavy heart. No, there were loud and happy cries of liberation.

In his speech in Canberra last night, Professor Newnham spoke of a national pre-term birth prevention program,

“The structure of the program has been built. The lead persons in each state and territory are in place.”

“What we need to do now is to provide the support needed for national success. And that includes financial support.

“It is now time for prevention of pre-term birth to become a national priority for Australia.”

That final sentence ought to create a wave of gasps around the country, not because there’s anything wrong with it, but because of its significance should we follow its natural logic. I doubt whether any journalist will note the irreconcilable clash of ideas here. Of course, the Professor isn’t talking about abortion as such. This approach to human life does, however, contradict the attitude and philosophic reasoning toward the unborn upon which abortion activists depend.

A nation that celebrates John Newnham on the one hand and celebrates abortion on the other, is at best confused and unaware of the moral dilemma that this dichotomy presents. At worst, Australians are machiavellian pragmatists, who value human life, not because of its inherent worth but because of the value I give it. Imagine living in a world where a human life only counts because I say so. Imagine living in a society where the young will live or be killed depending on what a parent decides?

Can we really say that the life of one child means less than the life of another? Specifically, Professor Newnham’s work relates to lowering the risks of children suffering illnesses and disabilities as a result of early birth. This approach sits in sharp contrast to what we are seeing in nations like Iceland whose approach is to abort those children who may suffer from a disability (an approach that is also employed in Australia). Does a child’s right to live diminish because they may suffer an illness or disability?

Today, Australians are praising a doctor who is striving to protect the health and life of unborn children. Tomorrow, hundreds of Aussie women will consider aborting their own unborn child.  To them, I say, there is a better path. It may be a difficult road but it is better, and there are organisations and people who are willing to help.

As Professor Newnham says, “life before birth means something”. 

How can Aussies praise the saving of one child in the womb and praise the killing of another child in the womb? It does not make sense, rationally or morally. Sadly, I suspect that for many Aussies, we will put this dilemma in the too hard basket. Instead, we will live with the incongruity and hope our consciences never spring to life.  Let’s throw another snag on the BBQ and pretend she’ll be right. Let’s stand and sing again, “Australians all let us rejoice…Advance Australia Fair.”

Or perhaps the Psalmist was right all along,

“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” (Psalm 139:14)

Australia is giving herself a nosebleed

“Mockers stir up a city, but the wise turn away anger.” (Proverbs 29:8)

It was only 2 days agothat I spoke about how the bushfires in Australia have been used to promote political agendas. I suggested that we should begin with grieving with those who have suffered loss, and we can give and pray, but sadly there are some Aussies who’ve bypassed these steps and run straight to angry politicisation.

There are many everyday Aussies who are helping out. There are political representatives across the divide leading and serving. There is however a sick undercurrent that is forcing itself to the surface.

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_1cf3

If we needed any new examples of the insanity and unscrupulous behaviour that is taking over our culture, here are two that have arisen in the last 24 to 48 hours.

One, Victoria remains under a heightened state of emergency, with weather conditions worsening today and the high probability of fires flaring across the State. As emergency services are stretched, Victorian Police have urged people not to attend a planned protest in the city today.

A group known as “Uni Students for Climate Justice”, are organising an anti Scott Morrison protest in Melbourne CBD late Friday afternoon.

 Acting Assistant Commissioner Tim Hansen, emergency services minister, Lisa Neville,  and the Premier Daniel Andrews have all condemned the planned action.

Neville has said,

“This is a really reckless and selfish thing people are doing,”

“I don’t want to see police having to pull people out of [fire-affected] communities to come in and manage a protest.

“There is a time for protests. It’s not this Friday.”

Instead of clogging the streets of Melbourne on a day when our emergency services are being pushed to the limits with life threatening fires across our State, why not find a way to help local communities in need?

Second, one of Australia’s wealthiest businessmen, Andrew Forrest, has donated $70 million toward bushfire relief. All week, people have been shouting out their donations and calling on fellow Australians to show generosity at this time. But in the case of Andrew Forrest, leftist twitter has nothing to say except derision and outrage.

For example,

“Andrew Forrest’s net worth exceeds $12.8 billion. His self-serving tax deduction of $70 million is less than 0.55% of his wealth. No single human being should be that rich. A student with $100 in the bank who donates $1 is showing greater generosity.”

“so disappointing.”

“Andrew Forrest explains his faith. So his god found the key; and placed it back on his bike were he’d find it. His god ignores so much distress & tragedy; ignores so much misery. But helps young Andrew find his bike key? Is this faith? Or is there a severe mental unbalance here?”

I won’t repeat the worst of the tweets. Why such disdain for Twiggy Forrest? 1. He isn’t a green carrying progressive. 2. He hasn’t blamed the bushfires 150,000% on Climate Change. 3. He aligns himself with the Christian faith.

I know next to nothing about Mr Forrest, but the hypocrisy of his critics is telling. The same voices who are praising donations and demanding action cannot accept a $70 million donation because they don’t like the man’s politics and religion.

The bushfires are sadly illustrating once again how fractious and polarised our society is, and our inability to exercise humility and grace. I wouldn’t be surprised that if Jesus Christ himself came to Melbourne today, the response would be, “crucify him”!

“For as churning cream produces butter, and as twisting the nose produces blood, so stirring up anger produces strife.” (Proverbs 30:33)

The Aussie nose is bleeding and it’s likely to keep flowing for some time. Australian society desperately needs new voices, not giving up on truth but speaking with wisdom and kindness. We need new voices, not to compete with the anger but to create a better story for the wellbeing and future of this country.

Responding to the Australian Bush Fire Crisis

We spent the first three days of 2020 driving to and from Canberra, for a family wedding. Once we drove across the border from Victoria into NSW, visibility on the road slowly deteriorated as the air became more dense with smoke. By the time we reached Canberra, we could see less than 100m in front. Getting out of the car, the smoke clung to our clothes and flushed into our throats as we breathed, causing everyone to cough and eyes to sting.

We had the radio tuned to the ABC for reports on the fires. As we drove into Canberra we listened to a pollution expert explain that air quality index readings above 200 are considered hazardous to health. That day in Canberra (as it was for most days in recent weeks), the readings spilled over 2,000, and even reaching 5,000 during parts of the day. Canberra wasn’t only the dullest city in Australia, it now has the worse air quality of any city in the world.

Our hotel was situated just around the corner from  Parliament House. The flag and spire on top of the building that usually dominates the area, couldn’t be seen due to the blanketing haze. We drove across Lake Burley Griffen with its famous fountain but all was invisible to us.

Picture this, the situation around the country worsened over the week. Returning home to Melbourne on the Thursday, we drove south along the Hume Highway. For the entire 700km journey smoke covered the roads and the paddocks and hills on either side. 700km of smoke from bushfires. As we approached Albury/ Wodonga the smoke thickened, and at times visibility on the road was less than 200m. We stopped for lunch in Wodonga, where the smoke was heaviest. Our food had little taste for the smoke covered everything. The air tasted of ash, and its’ heaviness found a home in our throats and noses.

I have passed through bushfire areas before. Growing up in country Victoria, I’ve experienced burnt out bushland and smoke lingering around the hills, but never anything so thick and covering an area of such staggering size. Something like 10 million hectares of land is now scorched black. That’s an area larger than many entires States in the USA. More than 20 people have died, 2000 homes destroyed, and it is said that half a billion animals have been killed.

Cooler and wetter conditions mean that most of the fires are now either under control and at least temporarily dampened until the weather changes once again. We can be thankful for this temporary reprieve.

The reason for writing this post less about sharing our recent family road trip and more about offering some advice. Unlike most bushfires in Australian history, this time everyone has an opinion. Some of the suggestions are helpful while others should be avoided.

I want to offer 6 responses that Christians can make following these weeks of fire (and in preparation for the rest of the fire season which we mustn’t forget has another two months to go). I want to begin where I think the Bible encourages us to begin

1. Weep with those who are weeping and mourn with those who are mourning. 

“mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15)

If we cannot start here and empathise with those who have lost much, frankly our opinion about the rest is little more than a noisy gong being played out of rhythm. Fast-forwarding to politicking and virtual signalling is uncouth and uncaring.

2. Avoid the heated and at times disgusting politicisation of these events.

In one sense it is impossible to separate the fires from politics altogether. Of course, understanding what has happened and learning how to better manage the future matters enormously.  However, over the last month, we have seen some of the grossest grandstanding and vilest commentary that I have witnessed in Australian political history.

No, I am not referring to the Prime Minister here. I recognise Scott Morrison has made errors of judgement in his initial responses (in my opinion, taking his family on a one week vacation over Christmas is not one of them). I also think that the opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, has overall addressed the crisis well. While I frequently disagree with the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, he has conducted himself well and served Victorians well throughout this crisis. There have been however too many loud and loquacious voices using this tragedy for political point-scoring.

In such dangerous and exhausting circumstances as the nation has witnessed, there is naturally going to be anger and frustration, especially by those who are closest to the fires. But much social media and media responses have only served to fuel anger and encourage outrage in an irresponsible way, and often by people who know little about the subject matter. My plea is, don’t dump more petrol on the crisis.

Think before you tweet. Check before you share articles. Ask, is this righteous anger or are you justifying your disapproval of political opponents?

3. Don’t claim to be an expert when we are not

I have been asked to write some thoughts on the bushfire emergency. Until now I declined. Let me share why. There are two reasons why I have hesitated in writing anything on the fires. The first reason is that when someone’s house is on fire you don’t stop to argue about how the fire started, you go in and help them. There is a time to critique and analyse, and there is a time to get on with the job of helping out. As I suggested under point 1, many Aussies who have a megaphone in hand have skipped the important step of mourning and weeping, and instead jumped straight to blaming and shaming. Second, while I understand there are 25 million experts on climate change in Australia, I am not one of them. I can offer a point of view about fires and climate change, but I no more an expert than most of my 25 million fellow Australians. The problem is of course, that by even admitting such, there will some critics who assume I must be one of those evil climate deniers. Anything other than shrilling at the top of my lungs has become reason to cast suspicion on a person.

So what do I think? I accept that the globe is warming and that human beings have contributed to this problem. I am not a climate change scientist and neither are most of us. One cool fact though is that at Mentone Baptist Church we have an actual climate change scientist, and conversing with her is more than helpful. In addition to accepting the science on Climate Change, I also accept reporting that has revealed many of the fires that have started this season are the result of human agency; arsonists. Extreme drought conditions in many parts of the country and years of ignoring Indigenous practice of fuel reduction burning are also a combustible combination. It seems as though there are multiple factors contributing to the terrible fires burning across the country, including climate change. Indeed, it only makes sense that climate change will produce more volatile conditions (i.e. droughts and heat) leading to bushfires. It is vital that experts once again meet and provide workable and important solutions for future seasons (which include pathways to introducing more renewable energies). Believing in responsible policies and avoiding extreme rhetoric does not amount to Climate Change denial. These are my 2 cents worth of comments, spoken as an Aussie novice in this area.

4. Donate without playing to the crowds.

When donating to any of the organisations collecting for fire relief, don’t grandstand. It’s helpful to promote organisations who are doing good work but we don’t need to know how generous you are personally.

5. Pray.

Prayer isn’t useless. There are Aussies fighting the fires and who have escaped the fires who’ve been praying and they stand by prayer. Pray is effective for those who pray to a living God who is Sovereign over all things. Christians pray to a loving Father, who is the creator of all things and who is compassionate. We don’t pray because we understand everything that happens, we pray because we trust God who sees all things.

Pray for those fighting the fires. Pray for the communities who are facing fire. Pray for rain. Pray for our Government and political representatives that they will make wise decisions both in their immediate responses and for planning for the long term future. Here is a suggested prayer written by Glenn Davies, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney:

“Our heavenly Father, creator of all things and especially the creator of this land and its original peoples, we call out to you in these desperate times as fires have swept across several parts of our country.

Our hearts cry out to you for those who have lost loved ones, and those who have lost properties in the wake of these ravaging fires 

Father we pray, in your mercy, restrain the forces of nature from creating catastrophic damage; in your mercy protect human life.

Guard those volunteers, rural fire service personnel and emergency services who selflessly step into the breach to fight these fires. Guide police and authorities who help evacuate and shelter those who are displaced.  Bring comfort and healing to all who suffer loss.

Remembering your promises of old that seedtime and harvest will never cease, we pray that you would open the heavens to send refreshing rain upon our parched land. 

In your mercy, we pray for drenching rain. 

We pray that despite the forecasts, in your miraculous power you would bring forth rain to quench these fires and to bring life back into the earth, so that crops may grow and farmers may bring forth the harvest of the land again.

We bring these requests before your throne, in the name of your Son, who died and rose again for our deliverance,

Amen.”

 

6. Put your hope in God

Before Christmas, I wrote an article about hope, because I am increasingly hearing and seeing a young generation express hopelessness and despair. There are many reasons why millennials are sensing a world without hope, and chief among them is the issue of Climate Change.  In that piece, I suggested something that amounts to blasphemy according to some, but it is true and needs saying:

“Climate change isn’t the existential threat facing the planet and humanity. It is a symptom of an ancient problem that we have afforded to ignore for far too long. If there is no God, why should we ultimately concern ourselves with altruism? Why bother with protecting the environment for future generations if purpose is found in the individual and defined by personal satisfaction? The fact that we understand that there are moral boundaries and that the future does matter, is not an argument against Divine purpose but the only rational explanation for having such concerns. How we behave toward one another and how we use the planet is important because this isn’t a meaningless existence.

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

There has been a cosmological battle taking place for millennia, and it is ultimately against the Creator, not the creation. The ancient mandate to care for the world remains, but the growing call to save and redeem the world is not one within our purview. Those who believe we can save the planet have far too high regard for human capability and moral will. I’m not saying, don’t bother reducing carbon omissions and forget about investing in renewable energy; far from it. The house I live in won’t stand forever but it doesn’t mean I neglect the building. I neither wreck the house nor place all my energy and hopes in the house. I’m just pointing out the fact that people putting their ultimate hope in other people will always disappoint in the end. The role of global saviour is too big a job. You see, I don’t believe things are as bad as we suggest they are; despite even the good around us the reality is far more perilous.”

The Bible tells us that the world in which we live, with all its beauty and wonder, is also a dangerous place. It is cursed and corrupted and corroding like those old fashioned corrugated iron roofs that mark the Australian landscape. The hope for creation lies not in our management skills and commitments, but in the Gospel alone. When Christians forget this, we place too great a burden on our children to fix that which we cannot, and we may slide into preaching a Gospel to Australia which is no Gospel at all.

 “19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.” (Romans 8:19-25)

We can’t survive without hope. Hope in the world or hope in humanity is an age-long route to despair. Human responsibility is noble and right, but the hope of the world cannot rest on the shoulders of any given generation.

“And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us” (Romans 5:5)

Through the Looking Glass and out the other end

Are you confused? How can you not be confused?

We have been told that there is no difference between a man and a woman and yet there is a growing call among women arguing that men cannot be women.

Only a couple of years ago, it was the case that challenging a woman was paramount to mansplaining. In the world of 2019, women can lose their jobs and be pulled out of the intersectional tree for the simple reason that they are standing up for women’s rights.

J.K. Rowling has today found herself being pushed down the intersectional tree for that very reason. Rowling is no defender of classical gender studies. She is renowned for her social media defence against dark arts of gender stereotyping and those evil muggles who believe in heteronorms. But all this has gone up in smoke today. With a quick flick of the wrist and touch of social media wizardry,J.K Rowling has been transformed into a “bigot” and a “white feminist” and a “science denier”.

What was her sin? J.K Rowling defended a British woman who lost her job for suggesting that “men cannot change into women”. Maya Forstater, an academic working for the Centre for Global Development (CGD), took the Think Tank organisation to court, where yesterday the judge ruled against Forstate.

Rowling tweeted, 

“Dress however you please.

Call yourself whatever you like.

Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. 

Live your best life in peace and security. 

But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

d014970c67416db1d90f0c1feb776ecd.jpeg

Once again we’ve seen that the social media dementors are an angry bunch. They will turn on anyone, no matter their intersectional record. The real problem lies in the fact that their influence isn’t limited to twitter and facebook. The success of the outrage mob can be seen in the fact that today a woman can lose her job for affirming women and men being women and men. The cherry on top of the cake is a judge supporting the employer’s decision.

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen

I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob

Just in case you thought that Azkaban only existed in the United Kingdom, in The Australian today, Holly Lawford-Smith, an academic at the University of Melbourne, has written a piece explaining her fears over devaluing of womanhood in Australia, 

“Across several countries, a war over words is raging: what is a woman? This question led to angry protests at the University of Melbourne this year when the Victorian Women’s Guild hosted an event to discuss Victorian legislation proposing to make “wom­an” a category anyone can identify into, by making legal sex a matter of mere statutory declaration. Those opposing the bill argued it undermined women’s spaces and services, while those supporting the bill hailed it as a progressive step in the fight for trans rights. The bill passed and comes into effect by May next year. In Victoria, a woman will be anyone who declares themselves one.”

I realise that according to today’s rules of engagement, I shouldn’t be saying enough on the topic. As a man, I’m not meant to engage in this conversation because any comment is an expression of patriarchy. Of course, there is a rare exception, when for example, a man fully embraces a woman’s ‘right’ to kill her own unborn child. But I wonder if that even holds now. What if I, as a man, am defending a man’s right to identify as a woman? Is that permissible? And what about those men who are now having babies and having abortions? 

We are all the egg man and the walrus! 

We have moved beyond peering through the looking glass. We’ve entered a crazy new world where left is right and wrong is good and the impossible is normal. Sky is grass and the ocean is space. Nothing is what it seems to be, and questioning the new morality is the only heresy. 

Nothing is what it seems. Our memories deceive us. Knowledge no longer derives from empirical investigation and rationality. The only objective is subjective, and commonsense is replaced by the gods of self-actualisation.

While few commentators are yet prepared to admit it, in the space of a few short years we are witnessing 100 years of women’s rights being erased. It’s not conservative men or Christians who are responsible. Far from it. Many would speak up if social elitists wouldn’t be so quick to shut them down. The reality is, our society no longer has the epistemological equipment to speak up and refute this kind of thinking. We have invested decades in our academic institutions and politicking and social engineering in order to insist that there is no difference between male and female. Western cultures have exerted every effort to eliminate biology and social constructs, and we have slandered anyone who dared suggest that these things do exist and that they kinda matter.

The very premises used to construct feminist ideology are now being used to supplant feminism with transgenderism. 

Pause for a moment: a society that can no longer distinguish between men and women has truly lost its way. Do you agree? When a woman loses her job because she believes women are women, what kind of magical world do people think we’re encouraging? We are seriously losing our minds and destroying the soul.

People struggling with their sexuality and or gender deserve our love and care and friendship. I believe the good news of Jesus Christ is good news for everyone who looks to him. He offers a better hope than all of the intersectional nonsense that is tearing apart societies and will produce only long-term harm.

When the measure for truth and goodness is self-determinant, we have set for ourselves a society that will eventually implode, not suddenly but inevitably. “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. It’s been tried before and it always ends in disaster. Sadly, I suspect that concerned women speaking up won’t be enough to slow down this sexual revolution. So long as we hold fast to its philosophical premises, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other societies will continue to down the road to oblivion.

If only there were a more certain way to understand what it is to be human. If only there was a clearer and better way to grasp the reality of who we are.

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen

I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob