christianity

Beer, Bible, and a Baptist?

/ MurrayCampbell / 4 Comments

Ok, let me clear my glass from the outset, I don’t drink beer. And no, it has nothing to do with being a Baptist. To my episcopalian skeptics I will retort by pointing out that for some years we had a group of  ‘underground’ beer brewers at our Church!

Leaving my personal drinking preferences aside, connecting the Bible and beer isn’t that novel an approach. After all, according to Martin Luther the Reformers held a Bible in one hand and a beer in the other,

“I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing.  And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and my Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it.  I did nothing.  The Word did it all.”

In what is possibly a first though, the Bible Society has joined arms with Coopers Brewery, with Coopers tagging 10,000 cartons of their light beer with a Bible verse, and with links to the Bible Society’s 200th anniversary. While Coopers may or may not benefit financially from this partnership is, I suspect, beside the point. One Aussie company is celebrating our nation’s oldest continuing organisation. There is nothing new about this; Aussie companies have noted and branded all kinds of Australian symbols and celebrations over the years, and this is just another…until one checks their twitter feed!

As part of the Bible Society’s anniversary, they have produced a series of short videos featuring Aussies discussing current topics. The first video was released this week with Federal MPs Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie talking about same-sex marriage. Unlike the Bible versed cartons, Coopers Brewery has not sponsored the videos.

Yes, the video is light hearted

Yes, it’s promoting the Bible. Is that so wrong?

Yes, it is staged, but that doesn’t make the two politicians any less genuine with their comments. I don’t know Andrew Hastie, but I have met Tim Wilson, and I found him to be a decent Aussie bloke, who is clear about what he believes and who is also willing to let others express their views.

I’m sure a lot of Aussies will appreciate the video for what it is, a nonchalant signal that Australians can still sit down and talk about real issues, without name calling and speaking down to the other. However, it was clear from my Sunday afternoon twitter feed that not everyone is so happy.

One Melbourne politician and LBGTI advocate tweeted, ‘Nothing ‘civil’ about homophobia, and that’s what opposition to LGBTI equality is. Boycott @coopersbrewery’

Christine Milne is calling for Aussies to boycott Coopers! It’s okay Christine, I never have.

Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 2.15.58 pm

Apparently we should never buy Coopers beer again, and the video reeks of homophobia. I’m not quite sure how that works given that Tim is openly gay and an advocate changing the marriage act.

It is sad to see how our society has reached the point where notable public figures have self-determined that civil discourse is no longer permissible unless it conforms with their particular brand of secular humanism.

I am not sure whether peoples grievance is over the fact that the Bible Society is behind the campaign or because two politicians have dared demonstrate a courteous disagreement about marriage. Either way, this short video breaks the narrative that social progressives would have the public believe, and for them, this is unforgivable. 

When society no longer permits the dissenting voice, as reasonable and gracious as that voice may be, we have abandoned any true sense of the phrase ‘liberal democracy’, and we have entered a very dark and dangerous pathway to authoritarianism. I do hope that we can see the light and steer away from such a direction.

I am reminded of when Christianity first arose in Jerusalem and then spread to neighbouring regions, and eventually throughout the Roman Empire. The Acts of the Apostles records how the apostles and first Christians won over people with persuasion and reason, with impassioned argument and kindness. There may or may not have been a beer in hand, but there was often a Bible, and that is ok. Should we hide the reasons for our beliefs and values? Is not owning up to them a more honest and ultimately more productive approach to public discourse and dialogue? And who knows, maybe next time we’ll drink coffee instead!

Australia’s Oldest Organisation Turning 200 years old

/ MurrayCampbell

This weekend, Australia’s longest continuing organisation is celebrating it’s 200th anniversary. Few institutions survive 200 years, let alone continue to flourish after such time. The organisation which is reaching this rare milestone is not a bank or a theatre company, nor a business or school; it is the Bible Society of Australia.

logo

I suspect that if this were any other type of organisation, the coverage would be wide across our news and television. Let’s admit it, a 200 year anniversary doesn’t happen very often in Australian history.

The Bible Society had started in England some years earlier, with the purpose of distributing copies of the Bible to military servicemen, and later to Welsh speaking Britains who could not read an English translation of the Scriptures.

It was Governor Macquarie who in March 1817 encouraged the birth of the Bible Society of Australia.

The aims of the Bible Society have changed little in its 200 years. They exist to bring the Bible to Australians, whether in English or  by translating the Scriptures into many other languages so that people can read the word of God for themselves. They also support many translations projects across the world.

According to McCrindle research, approximately 45% of Australians now own a Bible (and that percentage shrinks to 32% for Gen Y), although Bible websites are visited by Australians in huge numbers, one site alone has over 50 million visits a year by Aussies. 

The Bible remains the most read book throughout the world, and has been translated into more languages than any other book. Despite a smaller number of Australians owning and reading the Bible, it remains enormously influential across our culture, including in politics, law, and the arts. And while some Australians have put is aside, many thousands of new Australians are keen to read this most astonishing book. Like the foundations of a building, or the innumerable kms of pipes that traverse underneath our streets, both are unseen and yet we depend on them every day, so to  the Bible has provided a bedrock with out which our society would be considerably weaker and less certain.

Think about it…the Bible is, to use its own description, the words of God, the very breathed out words of the living God for us. The Bible is the words of God, about God, and for us so that we might know him, and understand the world and even ourselves.

“The law of the Lord is perfect,

    refreshing the soul.

The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,

    making wise the simple.

The precepts of the Lord are right,

    giving joy to the heart.

The commands of the Lord are radiant,

    giving light to the eyes.

The fear of the Lord is pure,

    enduring forever.

The decrees of the Lord are firm,

    and all of them are righteous.

They are more precious than gold,

    than much pure gold;

they are sweeter than honey,

    than honey from the honeycomb.

By them your servant is warned;

    in keeping them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)

The Bible is without parallel in human thinking in regards to its view of God and design for humanity. It portraits God in ways that make the Sistine Chapel appear like a cistern, it penetrates the human psyche more deeply than a hydraulic drill piercing deep into ancient bedrock. It is more glorious than the music of J.S Bach and more comforting than the closest friend. It is more honest, more confounding, more rational, more mysterious than any other text we will read in our short lives. And yes, it chiefly tells us the story of redemption, of the God-man Jesus Christ, who has accomplished the impossible for us.

In a season when many Aussies are less inclined to consider God, I love the Bible Society’s anniversary slogan, Here for Good. Perhaps it sounds a little presumptuous, but 200 years isn’t a bad beginning, and for a book that has been changing the world for centuries longer, might I suggest that the presumption lies with those skeptics who would wish us to close the Bible once and for all, or to lock it up in a Museum’s glass case with the nation’s relics. The problem is, the Bible is a living book and it will continue to transform future generations of Australians, long after every other book has been forgotten.

This weekend there are formal celebrations taking place around the nation, but people are welcome to drop in to a church near them. If you live around Mentone/ Cheltenham, we’d love you to join us this Sunday at 10am, as we open the Bible together and hear of wonderful thing from God.

Also, the Bible Society is giving away free Bibles to anyone interested. If you’re visiting Mentone we are also very happy to give you a free Bible.

Changes to Victorian Donor Laws: some notable & unexpected corollaries

/ MurrayCampbell / 2 Comments

Changes to donor laws that were adopted by the Victorian Legislative Council in 2015 have today been enacted, and if the news is anything to go by, I can express initial support.*

As of today (March 1), Victorians can access information regarding their donors and heritage.

The Age has published the story of Katherine Vowles, a 26 year old Melbourne musician. At the age of 11 her mother told Katherine that she had been conceived with a sperm donor.

“As a young girl, the possibility of half siblings, especially sisters, was tantalising.”I imagined all these different versions of myself,” she said.   “When you’re a little kid you want to find all these brothers and sisters because you want to hang out with them.”

Curiosity grew into a personal mission about a decade later, in 2012, when Katherine moved from her hometown in regional South Australia to Melbourne, where she was conceived.

“As I’ve gotten older I’ve had more questions because of things like medical history, heritage, life interests and life goals, the who am I stuff.”

“As I’ve gotten older I’ve had more questions because of things like medical history, heritage, life interests and life goals, the who am I stuff,” she said. “I wondered if he was into music, if he was any kind of creative.”

The only new information she could get was how many other babies had been conceived with the same donor’s sperm. “I had a lady on the phone … she had the file with his name on it but she’s just not allowed to tell me anything,” Katherine said.”

img_0037

One of the many commonalities every human being shares is the existence of a mother and father. We all have a mother and father; life would be impossible otherwise. For most of us, we know and love our mum and dad. For some, one or both parents have caused us great harm and pain, and this knowledge continues tear at us and to bring tears. Others, such as Katherine Vowles, have not know one of their biological parents, whose identity until today remained a secret.

I am grateful for the fact that I do know and was raised by my biological parents, and so because of my own experience it would be presumptuous to assume what is likely to be multifarious thoughts and desires among those who have not known their biological parent(s).

As the story in The Age expresses, it is understandable and even natural for children wanting to know their biological parents, and for the Governmental to remove obstacles is positive, although understandably not all children will take up the opportunity, and no doubt some parents will be apprehensive at the prospect.

I want to focus my comments on 2 unexpected but important corollaries from this change in law:

Firstly, when it comes to children and parents, we cannot escape biology. There may be good reasons why such a separation occurs, and there also be unethical reasons, but we know that time and space and anonymity are not sufficiently strong to break that bond between parent and child.

We should therefore resist establishing societal structures that build family units which depend on removing this link between a child and their biologic parents. This is very different from the example of adoption or foster care, whereby society is practicing a retrieval ethic, that is, making the best out of a bad situation. It is important for Australians to realise that as we tinker with definitions of marriage, for example, we are creating social units that cannot naturally create human life, and therefore necessitate removing a child from one biological parent.

Secondly, the Government, on this occasion at least, makes it clear that the rights of children outweigh those of a parent, albeit a donor parent. Health Minister Jill Hennessy says the Government recognises the issues pertaining to peoples anonymity, but have decided that children learning their parents names is more important than the rights of a donor.

What this shows us is that no matter how hard society tries to fashion relationships and marriages in whatever form we want, we keep finding ourselves going back to that which we should never have left. If the design is good, we should not play with it.

But there is one more thing that needs saying, and in some ways it is more important than these first two points:

The story of the Bible does not end with the ‘normal’, as though affirming and experiencing the normal pattern of family is the prerequisite for knowing God, and you’re damned to hell if it is otherwise.

While the Bible presents a consistent view of marriage and of the family unit, and notably it is this understanding that remains paradigmatic today, it also describes many other families. Some of these families speak of unenviable and difficult circumstances, and yet from them we read beautiful stories of grace: Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and Rachel, Judah and Tamar. These stories are not normative and neither are they suggesting to us alternate ways to create family, but rather they teach us that such scenarios are not the end of the line. Those family relations were not ideal and some clearly immoral, but God was not stumped by them, and through human error (and sin) he showed grace and love.

Society functions best when we encourage family structures that enable children to be raised by their biological parents. As far as I understand the changes to the law, the Government has made a good decision, although I appreciate the difficulties attached for both children and donors. As good as all these things may be, there is something even better, and it is not dependent upon biology or family, and neither is it an alternative to these relationships. In a world where familial identity and relationship may elude us, there is possibility of relationship that surpasses even the most loving and secure family:

“For he [God the Father] chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

It is seriously worth pondering these words for a moment. We may search for lost parents, lost siblings, and children, and we long for these holes to be filled and questions answered. There also exists a need and desire to be reunited with God, and this awareness is as basic and innate to human beings as is our need for familial love and relationship. Consider those words from Ephesians in the Bible: to be known and welcomed and loved by God is the greatest joy and satisfaction anyone can experience.  It is beyond the scope and power of any Government to achieve this, but it is not beyond God who has come down to us in Jesus Christ and calls us to come back to him.

————————-

*I should preface my comments by acknowledging that the field of sperm, egg, and embryo donation is thwart with ethical concerns, but most are beyond the scope of this post.

The ethics of Peter Singer: he believes what?

/ MurrayCampbell

Does a pig have greater value than a child with Down Syndrome? Is a dog worth more than a severely disabled child?

According Peter Singer the answer is, yes.

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Australian born, he is one of our country’s best known academic figures, and tonight he was invited to return to be part of the panel on ABC’s QandA. 

c5oga3zuwae1loo

In 2007 Singer wrote a piece in the New York Times, where he discussed ethical questions surrounding  a severely disabled 9 year old girl by the name of Ashley. He wrote,

“Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. We are always ready to find dignity in human beings, including those whose mental age will never exceed that of an infant, but we don’t attribute dignity to dogs or cats, though they clearly operate at a more advanced mental level than human infants. Just making that comparison provokes outrage in some quarters. But why should dignity always go together with species membership, no matter what the characteristics of the individual may be?

What matters in Ashley’s life is that she should not suffer, and that she should be able to enjoy whatever she is capable of enjoying. Beyond that, she is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her. Lofty talk about human dignity should not stand in the way of children like her getting the treatment that is best both for them and their families.”

Notice the comparison he makes? He suggests that the life of a dog or cat has more value and ‘dignity’ than a human being with limited cognitive faculties. Not only that, in true utilitarian style he denies Ashley’s intrinsic worth as a human being, suggesting that she has worth only insofar as she is loved by her family.

In a recent article in the Journal of Practical Ethics, Peter Singer tried to justify killing children with Down Syndrome.

“For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop.

“Disability” is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, “a life with disability” is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability.

But let’s turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being. Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one.”

That’s right, according to Peter Singer, a pig has more right to live than some human beings, should the person have intellectual and mental disability.

In 1999, Michael Specter of the New Yorker, wrote that, “Singer believes, for example, that a humans life is not necessarily more sacred than a dogs and that it might be more compassionate to carry out medical experiments on hopelessly disabled unconscious orphans than on perfectly healthy rats.”

The worldview driving Peter Singer’s beliefs is atheism, and his ethic of choice is utilitarianism, which holds that the most horrid actions can be justified should the outcome bring benefit to another person or group of people. It is therefore unsurprising that he openly advocates bestiality, infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and that he dehumanises those whom he declares less fit for life in this world.

We need to appreciate that these ideas are not being whispered on the dark web or behind closed doors, but openly in one of America’s Ivy League Universities, and in some of the United States’ and Australia’s most respected news and journalistic outlets. Indeed, he retains a teaching position at the University of Melbourne, where I am a graduate.

I have no doubt that it’s not only Christians who will be appalled by Peter Singer’s ideas; many atheists will also be disgusted.  And yet, Peter Singer is in some sense a victim of his own atheistic ideology, for he is chasing his worldview through to its logical conclusion. If this world is it, and there is no God who made and oversee all things, why should we pretend that people have inherent worth and equal dignity? Why should we attribute greater moral value to a sick person than a healthy animal? Why shouldn’t we kill the weak in order to help the strong?

We can be prone to hyperbole for all kinds of things, but it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that some of Peter Singer’s ideas are akin to ideologies pronounced by some of the most dangerous regimes the world has ever known. Before we yell out condemnation from across a chasm, we should  recognise that our own society has already adopted aspects of this ethical framework: in the way we understand some of society’s most vulnerable people, including the unborn because they may carry an ‘abnormality’. The fact that most of us resist and want to push back on many of Singer’s ideas, tells us something about how unsatisfactory and unnatural atheism truly is.

So where should we turn our attention? How different is the answer that we find with the God of the Bible. The Bible insists that every human being, from the moment of conception, is precious and made in the image of God. Gender, age, health, mental faculties, physical appearance, do not detract from a person’s inestimable worth.

Throughout his three years of ministry Jesus was known for befriending and caring for those whom society thought little, and had often neglected. No one was too insignificant for him to take interest in and show love.

On one occasion we are told,

“A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.” (Matthew 8:2-3)

Jesus didn’t stop there, the extent of love that God demonstrated was found on a roman cross, where the Son of God sacrificed his life for the salvation of others.

“Surely he took up our pain

    and bore our suffering,

yet we considered him punished by God,

    stricken by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,

    he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

    and by his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:4-5)

How would you define marriage?

/ MurrayCampbell

Last week a Senate report was released, following the Inquiry: the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill.

The scope of the inquiry was deliberately narrow, limiting discussion to consequences for law and society, should the Marriage Act change and include non-heterosexual marriage. The Senate Inquiry was not asking for arguments for and against same-sex marriage; indeed the committee outlined that such submissions would not be published. Unfortunately though, this important fact has been overlooked by some journalists who have painted the report as an argument for the inevitability of marriage change.

Deliberations concerning the fall-out from redefining marriage are important, and concerns are warranted given what is happening in some countries who have adopted same sex marriage. There are real consequences relating to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and there are genuine questions relating to the rights of children having a mum and dad, and to the issue of surrogacy and assisted reproduction. It is simply naive for us Australians to assume that nothing will change.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

As important as those conversations are, there is the preceding question, the question not tackled by the Senate Inquiry and is now assumed by many as a given: what is marriage?

According to the report, the new definition will involve deleting the phrase, ’man and woman’, and substituting it with ‘2 people’. Thus marriage would become in Australian law, ‘the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.

Increasingly, Australians have been led to believe that same-sex marriage is the great inevitable. The legal definition of marriage may well change in 2017, but the case for change has been less about cogent reasoning, and much to do with emotive stories and slick slogans. One should not ignore peoples personal experiences, but if we are to be fair, we will also listen to the equally powerful stories of same-sex attracted people who are asking us not to change the marriage definition. Yet, stories alone should not dictate Australian law.

Disappointingly, many people have been driven to silence, following a constant tirade of abuse from numerous politicians and media personalities. To even question the validity of same sex marriage is paramount to a new social heresy according to some. But it is possible, indeed desirable to speak for the dignity of LGBTI persons, and to seek their well being, without making the logical misstep of calling for marriage redefinition.

The question remains, what is marriage?

What is it about the nature of marriage that requires us to remove man and woman from its definition?

Is it love?

Love is of course a wonderful thing, and there are many kinds of love, but is this argument sufficient? Surely, not every loving relationship should be called marriage. The reality is, there must be more to marriage than love, otherwise even the proposed redefinition is discriminatory and inadequate.

Another argument that has been put forward is the view that marriage morphed throughout history, therefore it’s okay to once again institute change. This thesis however is nothing more than an example of historical revisionism. The 2004 amendment to the 1961 Marriage Act did not change the nature of marriage, it simply spelled out what was already established belief and practice. And when the Marriage Act was enacted in 1961, it was not reinventing the definition of marriage, but delineating what was known to be true about marriage. Similarly, the Family Law Act 1975 which established the principle of no-fault divorce, did not alter the meaning of marriage, but wholly depended upon it.

What about the argument of equality?

The phrase ‘marriage equality’ is often cited, and it’s a clever piece of marketing, but it is also self-defeating and potentially disingenuous.  First of all, all sides in the marriage debate believe in marriage equality, but equality depends on how one defines marriage. Second, if the current debate is really about honouring equality, for whom is it attaining equality? The draft definition will continue to discriminate against polygamists and polyamorists, and it will also discriminate against those who believe marriage should have fixed term rather than ‘being for life’. If proponents of ‘marriage equality’ are in fact wanting equality for all, it makes sense to ask, why do they insist marriage should remain between 2 persons and be intended for life?

Such questions are not difficult to answer for those holding to the traditional and historical understanding of marriage, but I am yet to hear a persuasive argument from those advocating change, and I am keen to hear one.

As far as I can see, pretty much everyone in the marriage debate discerns a level of discrimination, but the question is at what point? What is it about marriage that requires 2 persons and life long commitment?

After an interesting dialogue last year, one interlocutor wrote to me saying, “marriage is about what people want it to be, whether it’s about love, convenience, social acceptance, children, getting a visa or whatever.”

I appreciated his honesty, and it demonstrated that when nudged, the reasoning for marriage change frequently ends in this same place of vagueness and imprecision. But arguing that the meaning of marriage is malleable is a fast track to making marriage meaningless. Conversations such as this one revealed the argument boils down to individualism, and to the belief that I am free to determine meaning as I like. As appealing as that may at first sound, it’s ultimately fallacious and counter-productive for a healthy society.

If I walked along the Monash freeway, I would soon find myself in trouble because the Monash freeway is not designed for pedestrians.

Similarly, marriage is and has always been designed for a particular type of relationship: a loving consensual relationship between a man and a woman, intended for life, for personal relationship, for procreation, and for the building of society. There is something inherently unique about this covenantal relationship that we call marriage, and which can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. As an example, biologically, the act of procreation requires 2 persons: a man and a woman. And such is the intimacy of this sexual union, that it requires the kind of loving commitment that marriage provides. We all know  children who grow up without a father or without a mother, but I don’t know of anyone who believes that this is a good thing. It is sometimes necessary given the awful reality of domestic violence, or the tragic death of a parent, but does anyone truly believe that the ideal context for raising children is without a mum and dad?

If our Australian Parliament is to change the Marriage Act, we need better reasoning than what we have heard thus far. And last year’s argument, ‘well, the Americans have done it’, probably doesn’t hold so much weight anymore!

I trust people won’t confuse my frankness here with glibness or insensitivity, for I do not wish to cause hurt to any for whom this is a personal issue. I genuinely desire for you to have life to the full, as Jesus spoke about (John 10:10). It is also possible that there will be a few ‘religious’ people who will read my words and use them to agitate views about homosexuality that I do not share; they will not find an ally here because the God whom I know and serve has made every human being in his image and they are deserving of love and dignity. That marriage is for a man and a woman is a good thing,  which even many gay and lesbian people recognise and affirm*.

Is it wise to redefine marriage? Which ever way you respond to that question, we need to also answer these questions: what is marriage, and with what reason(s) do you define at such?

————————————————————-

*Sam Allberry is an English Anglican Minister who recently spoke to this issue, albeit in the British context,

“I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news,”

“My primary sense of worth and fulfillment as a human being is not contingent on being romantically or sexually fulfilled, and this is liberating,”

“The most fully human and compete person was Jesus Christ. He never married, was never in a romantic relationship, and never had sex. If we say these things are intrinsic to human fulfilment, we are calling our saviour subhuman. “

“I have met literally hundreds of Christians in my situation, and know of thousands more, who are same-sex attracted, and who joyfully affirm the traditional understanding of marriage being between a man and a woman, and the only Godly context for sex. If you do not hear from more of us, it is because it is really hard to stand up and describe ourselves in this way…”

(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/two-minute-clip-homosexuality-every-christian-should-watch)

 

 

Time for Repentance

/ MurrayCampbell / 2 Comments

“For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)

We are appalled and shocked, although sadly not completely unsurprised. The Royal Commission yesterday released statistics relating to child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church of Australia, and the read is sickening.

The Royal Commission disclosed that a survey conducted by the Australian Catholic Church found 4,500 alleged cases of child abuse within their organisations. This number reflects claims made between January 1, 1980 and February 28, 2015, and it also excludes cases that were not investigated.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

There are few significant organisations in the country that have not discovered someone who has abused a child; my own Baptist denomination is not without known cases. Jesus warns us about the log in our own eye, and the Scriptures also call Church leaders not to treat gross sin lightly. We anticipate people will try to infiltrate all kinds of organisations in order to scope and prey on innocence; this is not to excuse due organisational diligence, but this world holds insidious individuals who will attempt to circumvent the highest standards. Having said all that, this new data communicates what we perhaps already knew, and that there is a major flaw in Roman Catholic attitudes, brought about in part by flawed theological belief and practice. While any instance of child abuse is repugnant, there is a difference between isolated cases of abuse and a culture of abuse.

7% of catholic priests serving between 1950-2009 have been identified as alleged perpetrators. The current known number is 1,880 men. Among some Catholic organisations the percentage is considerably higher: 22% of ‘Christian Brothers’, and 40.4% of those belonging to the order of ‘the Brother of St John of God’ are known to be sex offenders.

The issue extends beyond the fact that thousands of children have been abused by priests, but that Catholic Dioceses (and other denominations) have also failed to properly address allegations and the clergy in question.

This is a national catastrophe.

Abusing children is unacceptable for any person belonging to any community group or society, and sadly it is occurring even now in many family homes across our suburbs and towns; it should not be. The Royal Commission has disclosed child abuse in schools, sporting clubs, Government organisations, and across religious groups. There is however something particularly evil about the presence of such sin among communities who profess Jesus Christ.

It would be unwise for me to speak to many of the points that are being made at the Royal Commission, not because one doesn’t have strong reactions, but one needs to recognise that there are complexities being addressed, for example, issues relating to reporting processes and investigations. Without reading all the material and having due knowledge of many legal affairs, it would be imprudent to comment on many particulars. The last thing one wants to do is add confusion or cause further pain for people involved in the Royal Commission, especially to the victims.

And yet, something needs to be said. Is this not one of the cries being levelled at institutions, that for too long they have remained silent and ignored the extent of the issue?

As a parent with three children I can imagine what many Aussie parents are thinking about these revelations, and these thoughts are not cordial. There are feelings of disgust toward the perpetrators and toward ecclesial authorities who have repeatedly failed to investigate and protect. There are feelings of sorrow for those whose childhood was snatched from them.

As a Christian and as a Church minister, I am angered that men would betray children under their care and that they would so disdain the name of Jesus by their gross sin. It is beyond reprehensible.

“For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4)

As much as we may point out that these priestly behaviours are irreconcilable with authentic Christianity, for they certainly contravene the person and teaching of Jesus Christ in every way, and yet we must appreciate that this issue has understandably tainted peoples trust in Churches. I can also see how many Australians don’t differentiate between Roman Catholicism and Christian Churches, for their are correlations, but there are also stark differences, which pertain to deeply held theological views that are proving to be unbiblical and untenable, such as Rome’s view of the priesthood.

Christians mustn’t give up being like Jesus, we need to become more like him. In the same short New Testament letter of Jude, where Christians are urged to look out for potential abusers in our churches, a few verses later we are also encouraged to ‘be merciful to those who doubt’.  This is not a time for defensiveness, but repentance, public repentance. 

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800

Lifeline 13 11 14

Post-truth hits NSW

/ MurrayCampbell / 8 Comments

At a time when many people are rightly questioning facts and figures, and rolling our eyes at the concept of ‘alternative facts’, surely it is incumbent upon us to tread with great care before casting allegations into the public sphere.

In the space of 4 days, the same newspaper, Newcastle Herald, has published an astonishing 5 articles by the one journalist, talking to the same topic, Scripture Classes in NSW schools. There is little development of the story across these pieces, they are mostly repeating the same negative rhetoric toward SRE.

Given the nature of the accusations being made, it is important that the public is given balanced reporting, with opportunity for alternate views to be expressed. Sadly, such balance is absent in these articles. We read of a string of protagonists who are  quoted at length, but with no SRE supporters quoted at all (with one exception being a Youthworks statement from their website). Is this story so obvious and one-sided? It is one thing to find a couple of dissenting priests, one who is known for his dislike of orthodox Christianity and therefore is hardly representative of mainstream Christians in NSW. Why not ask the many clergy who support SRE? The one-sidedness of these stories is enough to sink a battleship!

A poll was attached to one of the articles, conducted by Fairfax and asking the question, ‘Should scripture in state schools be suspended until the NSW government releases its scripture review?’ Over 73% of the 5000+ respondents answered no. The cynical side of me suspects that this poll was placed in the middle of the article in order to garner wide public support for suspending SRE, except it fell flat.

Some of the allegations are relatively minor, but others are most serious. Of gravest note is the implication that Youthworks’ Connect material has been involved in the Royal Commission into child abuse, and that the material is creating space for ‘grooming. This is fallacious and slanderous. Child abuse is a national moral issue and allegations cannot be treated lightly or flippantly. The media, and any person for that matter, should refrain from drawing ties to abuse when there is no evidence, and should there be evidence, surely the authorities including police must be informed.

One of the two articles published this morning begins by stating,

“SCRIPTURE in public schools is not an issue about religious views or what you believe about the historical accuracy of the Bible, which is where a lot of the argument seems to settle these days given the heavy involvement of evangelical Christian churches.

The scripture debate is about a more basic issue than that – child protection.

For more than three years the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has considered how institutions – churches, schools, sporting organisations, welfare providers, government departments, police, the justice system – have responded to child sexual abuse.

What can be said today, without any doubt, is that an institution with responsibility for children that fails to make child protection the top priority, is an institution where children are potentially at risk.” (Newcastle Herald, Feb 2nd)

It is astonishing to see a newspaper publishing not just sensationalism, but defamatory and slanderous claims. If I wrote an article linking an atheist group to child abuse, without clear evidence, I should expect to find myself in trouble.

Truth telling works both ways. SRE providers have a responsibility to work within the parameters set by Education Departments, and to ensure their material is age appropriate. When we make mistakes we must be eager to correct them. Evidence shows us that SRE providers continue to  work well with Education Departments in fulfilling all righteousness. The Queensland review is a clear example that the system is working well, with Youthworks taking ownership of poorly worded material and being quick to amend it.

I understand that not everyone likes the Bible and Christianity, and that some Australians have a view that such things don’t have place in a secular education. It is one thing for people to disprove of Scripture classes, but it is quite another to engineer false claims in order to have these classes suspended altogether. As it became apparent in Victoria, the agenda was not to suspend classes, but to remove Christian ideas and thinking out of schools completely, and the NSW public should not be tricked into thinking that those orchestrating the campaign are intending anything less.

We should also remember that no child is compelled to take SRE classes. Families have freedom to participate or not. That many thousands are choosing to enrol their children into the classes (I believe these numbers are growing in some schools), signals that not only SRE’s popularity but also the public wanting this curriculum for their children.

Perhaps leaders of the anti-SRE groups might consider arranging a face to face meeting with SRE providers? Would that not be more constructive rather than using newspapers to throw around out-dated and misinformation?

If we truly care for our children’s well being (and I’m sure that this is the case for people across the different perspectives on SRE), surely it is in our best interest to avoid false facts and stick close to what is true. 

This morning, as I read the Newcastle Herald, I remembered how a group of agitators conspired against Jesus. He did not retaliate or compromise integrity, he stood firm but not arrogantly, but with conviction and love, even for those who were accusing him. It is disingenuous to create an air of suspicion and fear by misrepresenting the facts and not publishing  balanced views. We should expect a higher standard of our media, but regardless of how Christians are portrayed, we must continue to graciously pursue what is good and right and noble.

“If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” (John 18:23)

Below is a copy of the corrections that Youthworks released yesterday:

“We also submitted a correction request to the Newcastle Herald this morning, asking them to address serious inaccuracies and misleading statements regarding Connect and SRE more broadly. We are still yet the hear back from their editors.

Here are the changes we’ve asked for:

1. The Connect material never encourages students to have secrets with their SRE teachers or other adults.

2. The use of the term “Special friends” was used in the context of describing someone who is a follower of Jesus – “Jesus was asking Matthew to be one of his special friends” and “Jesus calls us to become one of his special friends”. Education Queensland acknowledged that while they understood the context – a child-friendly translation for Jesus’ disciples – the term was unsuitable in context of child protection, and asked CEP to use an alternative (p. 11 of the Education Queensland Review). There is no suggestion in the material that students should have special friendships with adults. The term has taken on a particularly insidious connotation since the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse and will be removed from future SRE material.

3. The Education Queensland Review never accuses or suggests that Connect encourages grooming behaviour, but provides recommendations where language and terminology has been unhelpful in this context.

4. The insinuation in the story that SRE has been a feature of the Royal Commission is untrue and intentionally misleading.

5. The articles contain a decontextualized quote asking about a man born blind: “Was it a punishment from God because his parents or someone else had done something wrong?” which is used to imply that the curriculum links disability (in this instance, a man’s blindness) with sin. The quote in its actual context is a question asked of Jesus in a Bible passage, to which he immediately responds “No”. At no point are students asked this question, nor are they asked to evaluate disability in this context. Joanne McCarthy’s use of it is intentionally misleading and sensationalist.

6. The February 1 article makes no mention of the fact that the Education Queensland review found the “vast majority of Connect materials are consistent with legislation and policy concerning religious instruction”, nor that changes have already been made to the material which were reviewed by Education Queensland.

We eagerly await their reply.”

Here is the link to a statement published by Youthworks, also dated February 2nd: https://www.youthworks.net/press_centre/response-to-connect-articles-1-2-17

Update February 4th. The Herald today published another article by the same journalist, also speaking to the topic of the Royal Commission but this time there is no mention of Scripture Classes and their providers. I am only mentioning this update because in sharp contrast to the previous days articles, this one was well written and substantive.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4445757/church-prospects-grim-while-abuse-culture-remains/

The Glass Ceiling Women are not allowed to break

/ MurrayCampbell / 3 Comments

Recent conversations about abortion in Australia and in the United States have made it clear that it is not enough for a woman to be a woman, nor is being a feminist suffice; one must also publicly support abortion. A woman may reach the zenith of public office but it is apparently redundant if they are not promoting a particular type of womanhood. It is not enough for a woman to be woman (which I assume is insulting to many women), but you have to be a woman who talks to and represents a particular agenda.

443_1_promo

Last week the world witnessed over 3 million Americans marching through their cities, protesting the Presidency of Donald Trump. These protests are understandable given the unacceptable views on women that the new President has expressed. I want to emphasize how appalled I am by his comments about women. However, not everyone who wanted to march in support of women was welcomed, those who describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ were excluded.

The new Minister for Women in NSW is Tanya Davies, and within moments of giving her first press conference as minister,  numerous journalists and social commentators began calling for her removal. The reason? What atrocious deed is lurking in her wardrobe? The problem is, Tanya Davies is pro-life.

She said,

“Personally I am pro-life … but in my role I am there to support all women and I will support all women, and I will listen to all women and I will take on board all the stakeholders’ comments and feedback … and ensure the best outcome for all women is secured,”

In today’s The Age, Jenny Noyes made it clear as translucent silica that one cannot be Minister of Women if one does not support a woman’s right to abort her children,

“the appointment of Tanya Davies as the new Minister for Women was immediately soured when she admitted during the press conference to being “personally pro-life.”

“This simply is not good enough…NSW needs a Minister for Women who will actually fight for women’s rights, who is willing to put reproductive rights on the table – not to wind them back…”

The comment that I found most troubling was this one,

“The so-called “pro-life” movement says a life that hasn’t even begun is more important than the self-determination of a living, breathing woman.”

First of all, let’s not fudge the facts: life has already begun. Treating unborn children as pre-life and pre-human counters what we know to be true scientifically and ethically. To grade human beings according to levels of humanness is gross and immoral, and reminds us past generational ideologies which rightly cause us to shudder. Life does not begin at birth; our children are living sentient beings inside the womb. They are feeling and thinking and feeding and growing, responding to music and to touch.

Noyes’ also misrepresents the “pro-life” paradigm, painting  an either/or fallacy. It is possible to be both for unborn children and for women. But in the highly charged individualism which so much feminism has now adopted, room isn’t permitted for women (or men) to both support a woman’s health and life, and the health and life of the child in her womb. 

In Ancient Rome, baby girls were often abandoned and left to die in the open. Today, it is not sexism and misogyny that is responsible for most abortions in Western countries (although evidence suggests that the majority of world-wide aborted babies are girls), and neither is it the endangered-life of the mother, but the endangered life-style of women who are encultured to smash more glass ceilings. 

The irony is, Tanya Davies is cracking another panel, but it is not one that some women want broken.

As a Christian I can’t help talking about Jesus, for I reckon he is more relevant to these discussions than we often think. We know Jesus’ views of women countered the norms of his day, which angered many men who sought to subjugate women. Jesus also taught us to welcome and care for little children. A healthy and mature society will do both.

I wonder, instead of women and men jumping to break more ceilings, what if we learned from Jesus, and stopped climbing on our step-ladders and shattering glass all over those underneath us? How often in advancing our own dreams we sacrifice others whom we leave below? Jesus accomplished the greatest act in the history of human rights, not by asserting his position but in laying down his life out of love for others. He flipped on its head the alleged axiom of ‘power verses abuse’, when he chose to serve those with whom he held strong disagreement. And instead of discarding those whom we perceive as holding us back, Jesus gave them dignity and called them to walk with him through life. At least to me, this sounds like a better way forward.

There was evil in Melbourne today

/ MurrayCampbell

‘My heart is in anguish within me;

    the terrors of death have fallen on me.

Fear and trembling have beset me;

    horror has overwhelmed me.

 I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!

    I would fly away and be at rest.

I would flee far away

    and stay in the desert;

 I would hurry to my place of shelter,

    far from the tempest and storm.” (Psalm 55:4-8)

Melbourne was frightened today, and tonight Melbourne mourns. This afternoon Melbourne witnessed the worse act of mass violence since the Queen St massacre of 1987, where 9 people were killed and several injured. Even as I write the toll from today’s crime has increased from 3 people dead to 4, and with a further 20 people injured. Police have told the public that the number of deaths may yet increase, and among the dead and injured are young children.

My city, our city, has been subjected to a pointless and evil act of terror. Like so many Melbournians I am trying to make sense of the incomprehensible, that a man would aim his car at innocent pedestrians in the centre of our city, along Elizabeth and Bourke Streets. 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

As with many others, I first realised some terrible event was unfolding as my twitter feed went into a frenzy with reports of a red car mounting the path of Bourke St, striking down several people. Within minutes a growing picture emerged of a police chase, an out of control driver doing donuts outside Flinders St Station, and hundreds of people shortly afterward running for their lives through city streets. One friend of mine reported that he heard gunshots and ran inside a nearby building, realising soon after that the assailant was being arrested, only 100m away.

During the first hour very few of us did not at least wonder whether we were seeing an act of terrorism; some foolishly sparked rumours on twitter, assuming without knowing. Police soon assured everyone that this was not terrorism and that the situation had been contained. Late afternoon police informed journalists that the alleged man was wanted for a stabbing from earlier today, and that he has a history of domestic violence and mental illness.

As with many others, I thank the police, ambulance, and hospitals who serve us so well. We should not forget them in our prayers as they work to protect, save, care, and heal.

The statement from our Premier, Daniel Andrews, echoes our own thoughts and prayers tonight,

“Our hearts are breaking this afternoon.

People have died in the heart of our city.

Others are seriously injured. Young and old. And all of them were innocent.

All of them were just going about their day, like you or I.

Some families are just starting to find out the news about their loved ones, and right now, our thoughts are with each and every one of them.

I’m so proud of all the Victorians who reached out and provided care and support to strangers today.

I’m so thankful for all our police, paramedics and emergency services workers who launched into action, and will now be working around the clock.

And I hope that everyone can be patient and cooperative, so we can let these professionals do their job.

This was a terrible crime – a senseless, evil act – and justice will be done.”

Mr Andrews is absolutely right, This was a terrible crime – a senseless, evil act”. Such appalling actions remind us how we need the moral category called, ‘evil’, and indeed that there is such a thing as evil. We are not stuck in an enclosed cosmos without Divine and ultimate reason and righteousness. Our recognition of evil forces us to discard esoteric notions of a godless universe, for we know and feel the odious presence of the nefarious, and we desperately need it gone, and perpetrators punished.

Tonight, some of our fellow Melbournians are entering the shadow of the valley of death, and many others stand nearby stunned and saddened. Psalm 23 reminds us that we do not have to walk through that valley of death alone,

‘Even though I walk

    through the darkest valley,

I will fear no evil,

    for you are with me;

your rod and your staff,

    they comfort me.’

More than that, the one called Jesus has walked this path ahead of us, and for us. He is no out-of-touch Deity, but a God acquainted with grief.

Tonight, perhaps others would also like to pray for all those tonight wrestling with what they witnessed, especially for the injured and for those facing the most inexplicable grief; praying that friends will surround them and weep with them, and asking that the God of comfort might give comfort and peace through the darkness.

phone number: 13 11 14

Lifeline Australia

 

Update Sunday morning (Jan 22nd): a 5th person has now died, a 3 month old baby boy.