Linkarama

A flurry of links for ya:

1. A Libertarian View of Gay Marriage introduces three concepts that help us think intelligently and practically about social institutions - the marginal case, the need to first consider social institutions as historical institutions, the real, well, reality of what I'm going to call 'legitimisation creep'.                                                                                                                   "In the end, our judgment is all we have; everyone will have to rely on their judgment of whether gay marriage is, on net, a good or a bad idea. All I’m asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision. I realize that this probably falls on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces, and I’m sorry, but I can’t help that. This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I’m asking it from my side too, in approaching social ones. I think the approach is consistent, if not exactly popular." (H/T Mikey and Alan)
2. The Pastor's Heavy, Happy Heart describes my life (except for Fridays ;)) - and I'm not even a pastor and only share some of the challenges and heartaches of that vocation. This (plus the small fact I don't think it's right) is why I could never be one and why I counsel anyone, but especially women, to think carefully before taking on the full-time ministry gig. But, gosh, it's worth it :).
3. 5 Tools Needed to Reach Today's Teens makes me glad because I was one. I love it that someone has taken the time and had the love to think about where they're at and what their world is like, and then told the rest of us.                                                                                "You may say that all people judge, lust, envy, and lie, but your teenage audience likely can justify any of those sins at the personal level, believing they have ultimate authority over morality. Consequently, those ministering to teens need a theological understanding of how sin originates from the human desire to live independently from God and to be the "god" of our own lives." (bold mine)
4. The Peacemakers Ministries site is a bright thing. A very real joy to find some specific, applied aspect of the Christian faith that hasn't in the process shed its roots. The site contains loads of freely available, eminently practical, deeply and roundly biblical informed stuff, all to do with forgiveness and reconciliation. This page has the foundational principles given us by God. And it's in Spanish too!                                                                                                                       "If a dispute is not easily resolved, you may be tempted to say, "Well, I tried all the biblical principles I know, and they just didn't work. It looks like I'll have to handle this another way (meaning, 'the world's way')." (H/T Joanne and Claudia)
5.  A Different Kind of Teacher tells the delightful tale of a new graduate who accidentally got things right and later worked out why.                                                                                  "When a student feels comfortable in the classroom, they are more open to answering questions and when they feel comfortable answering questions they'll eventually enjoy success. Success breeds more success and when you have a classroom full of kids who are suddenly doing well in a subject which they never have before, you're suddenly a favorite teacher . . . . They laugh as I rant and rave about the ancient cave-man era of Doom and Pitfall and Burger Time, and when they laugh, they are happy, and happy kids learn best . . . . They insist that the way I teach math is 'different' than other teachers when, in reality it is very much the same. Nearly every one of my kids says that math is 'just easier now.' When looked upon with even a mildly critical eye, the reason for this is simple. They understand because they're suddenly listening. They listen because I talk to them about things other than trigonometric ratios from time to time." (H/T Ian)
6.  Closure, from one of my faves, is a beautifully and truly observed piece.                        "'Close', by definition, is a neat and absolute act, but each of us is constituted—for good or bad—by the inheritance of genes and the untidy accrual of experience. We are where we’ve been, and we get to choose if we’re okay with that or not."
7. Infanticide: The Coming Battle is a plainly written post (at times a little too cynical/simplistic in describing people) that looks to an ugly, plausible future.                                                        "If infanticide ever becomes permissible it will mean the death of western culture as we know it. No longer a light in the darkness, but a greater part of the darkness. It will mean that we are ruled by Barbarians with Law degrees from Harvard." (H/T Alistair)

Feeding the chooks

I love this blog - Martin McKenzie-Murray may have an unusually longwinded, alliterative name but his prose is almost always elegant and clean and his thinking sharp (every now and then he writes a more rambly, discoherant piece, but we all have our days). He's a man who steps back from things, reflects honestly on why they should be that way and on the failings of society and man. This piece on how we live before the threat of death is sharp thing sharp. Before I was a Christian, I would have given my assent to his concluding line: now I think quite differently.

Death comes to us all, and the trick is not to learn how to die but how to live as openly as possible.

Pessimistic idealism

The Christian view of the world is at once far more pessimistic and far more idealistic than the humanist atheist vision. We plainly state that, at least until Jesus comes, things will never be made right, there will always be poverty, suffering, cruelty and disaster. I suspect that many areligious people would agree, but they don't have a decisive story for it - rather, their narrative says that we are fundamentally good people and our mistakes are at most the product of other peoples' mistakes. These motifs profer hope - in facing and finding healing for our own damage, in doing better by others and by the environment, and in getting behind any small action or spreading movement that advances the societal good. The rhetoric is all about improvement and advancement - towards a shining, perfect goal.

For people with such a bright vision, everyday life (sometimes) rings an oddly discordant note. The same people who champion a kind world of mutual love and respect often cut corners in the little things, not thinking or caring how their actions might hurt the people around them. People freeload on their neighbour's wireless internet because they can get away with it and it will make life cheaper for them - the practical imperative of exchanging money for services received or the fairness of paying half their neighbour's bill of little concern. This is an easy example, and it is true that very often everyday selfishness is muddied by situations of real pain. So it is that women who wish they didn't have to have a termination (because at some level they recognise it's wrong), go ahead with it anyway because they're getting no support from their loved ones, only pressure. In a world full of hurting, wronged people, there is usually more at play than pure selfishness, but it's still there.

And it's not just that people make self-serving choices in the commonplace decisions that come their way. Alongside the championing of great, affirming causes, more cynical postures are taken. Someone will say they don't love termination and would never have one themself, but will advocate for the legality/liberality of the procedure because it will make a bad thing less-bad.

Why this inconsistency? Is it that humanists lie when they say they care about love and respect, dignity and flourishing? Or it is just that petty selfishness and deep hurts get in the way? Is it that the rhetoric doesn't even convince its advocates who, in their heart of hearts, know that people aren't really that good and the world isn't really that fixable, so you just have to patch it up as best you can, aim for the less-bad? Or are the sort of things I've mentioned considered of little import and influence, without knock-on effect on the grand goals? 

In contrast, the Christian says that the world is stuffed and will never in this life be made right.  So whatever good we might do, we never pretend to be working towards perfection. But strangely, in the small things, we are far more idealistic. We feel uncomfortable when someone suggests searching for non password-protected wireless accounts. While acknowledging it's not that big a deal, at the same time we know that it is. We care about being a bad citizen, about making our neighbour pay our way. And even on the (rare) occasions when there really doesn't seem to be any down-side, we still hesitate to do wrong, because it's wrong. 

Humanism is instrumental: If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's okay. (To which should be added: If it doesn't hurt anyone *too badly*, or if they're a corporate/government entity, it's okay - as well as: If it does hurt people, but it's already an entrenched practice and by accepting it we can make it somewhat better, it's okay.) The Christian vision says: If it's not okay, it's not okay (and I should add: If it's okay, it's okay! - we have positive things to say too!). Because we believe in a God who has everything in hand, we care less about results - that's his business. Because we have a God who calls things right and wrong and cares about how we live, we care instead about the nature of the deed. This makes it hard for us to rationalise doing wrong in terms of outcomes or external pressures. It matters what we do and who we are, even - perhaps especially - when we won't be caught and maybe no-one will get hurt. We don't always get it right, but we usually know it was wrong. We're more idealistic here.

It's because of this thinking that we reject the world-weary path of prettying-up an evil deed. We don't seek to make a bad thing a little better because that's just the way it is and what can you do. When we are at our best, we elect instead to fight for a different, better path. Of course this is tempered by the 'badness' of the thing - so Christians may give their support to safe drug injection places while at the same time pushing hard for drug rehabilitation. We agree that we're never going to be rid of the bad stuff, yet are convinced that the answer is to act well, to battle for what is right with whatever influence we have and the decisions that come our way.


This may all sound very smug and self-congratulatory, but that's not where I'm coming from. For as a Christian, I don't believe that people - including myself - are fundamentally good. What I do know is that we all make sucky, terrible, sinful choices - and that we can also choose to name this for what it is, be forgiven and given power not our own to embrace the right. The other thing I know is that the world won't always be like this - one day it will be made new.

"They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord

as the waters cover the sea." 

(Isaiah 11:9)

Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill ADDENDUM

I wish to add a bit to one of my submission's paragraphs (see the post immediately below for the whole thing). I'll put it in bold. I don't know why I didn't think of this before.

  . . . . I would love to see a Tasmania respectful of different viewpoints and committed to properly informing its citizens. If, in order to ensure that women receive “unbiased information from which to make informed choices”, referrals to medical practitioners or counsellors without a conscientious objection to termination are to be made compulsory, the reverse should also occur. So, if a women is attended by a doctor or counsellor favorable to termination, it should equally be a legal requirement that they receive a referral to a doctor/counsellor with a conscientious objection, so that they too may hear and assess the biases of both perspectives. And while I sympathise with the government's desire for a clear ruling in emergency cases, I would like us to continue to be a society that works hard to protect individuals' right to act according to their personal values and beliefs. As such, a doctor who believes that referring to a surgeon who performs terminations would make him an accessory to murder should have those beliefs respected and not be forced to refer on, just as a doctor who believes nothing of the sort should have her beliefs honoured and be free to make the referral.