The Government's Aboriginal Reform Program

The government's Aboriginal reforms are fascinating, but I doubt this is new. There has probably been much fascinating research and ideas before now. However, these reforms seem to be, at the very least, a step in the right direction – because they are a step and because that step is more good than bad (or so I see it). I have no doubt it is all complex philosophically and no doubt it will prove even more complex as it works out (or doesn't) on the ground. No doubt it's one of those things you can't say much about unless you know the situation and the people intimately. So I'll just comment on one thing.

As I understand it, Aboriginal people will be convicted for the sins they have committed. Men will go to jail for abusing children. Parents will have their welfare payments controlled by someone responsible if their children are neglected or don't go to school. This is right and good.

As I understand it, the idea and hope behind the reforms is that people will end up taking responsibility, that they will recreate a purposeful life for themselves and their families, that they will regain the confidence and ability to redefine social norms for this time and place. This is all good, but its full realisation is unrealistic. Aboriginal people are messy, screwed up people, in exactly the same way as Anglo people are, or people of any other race. Those of us, Aboriginal and Anglo, who have been fortunate to grow up with a clear identity and a solid moral framework and with parents taking good care of us might be a bit more 'together'. But even when we're given the best of everything we're a sorry lot.

What Aboriginal people need more than a new structure (though that is sorely needed) and what Anglo people need more than a good society is forgiveness and new life. We all need forgiveness for our perverse and uncaring thoughts and deeds. We all need something other than ourselves, something greater and better than ourselves to help us be kind, to help us act with love.

And praise God! we have it in Jesus, in his dying on the cross for us, in the Middle East two thousand years ago. He died for the Jews of the Middle East, for the Aborigines of Australia, for the English who later settled/invaded this land, for all men of all nations, today. He is hope and joy and comfort and healing for everyone.

Paul's Passion*

“A man has his father's wife.” “There is jealously and quarreling among you.” “Some of you have become arrogant.” “One brother goes to law against another.” “When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.” “If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

What would we think of and say to a church like this? What do we say to people like this, people who call themselves Christian?

Are we as harsh as Paul? “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.” “I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?” “If you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” “In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.” “Brothers, stop thinking like children.” “Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish!”

How can the same man write the following things? “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.” “I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.” “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.” “My love to all of you in Christ Jesus.”

Do we see that it is out of love that he is so angry and blunt? Do we see that he's not just some arse-kicking guy, but that he cares deeply for these people and for his God's honour?

And we? Do we so love our brothers and sisters, those under our care, that we are as troubled by their sin, that we speak so bold?

And are we as confident that all will be well? Do we also say, “He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ”?

I know I don't, but I pray that I will.

* Quotes all taken from 1 Corinthians

Teaching Children

“What people will remember is what you're passionate about.” That's what Don Carson says about preaching. I agree and I think it extends further than that. I've been thinking about growing up in the church and about what children and teenagers are taught. I believe there is a great danger in just teaching true things. The danger is that kids will come away with a miscellany of truths without knowing how those truths connect or what their foundation is. They may even know that the cross is the central thing, but they won't necessarily figure out how.

This is dangerous because a kid's world is all about good and bad, punishment and reward, rules and consequences, so when they look at the miscellany, they will likely see a call to be good. Our children will not see grace unless someone shows them. They may grow up with the great blessing (I mean this) of knowing what is right and wrong, but with little grasp of the righteousness of God, with little awareness that God is familiar with our sin and has already answered it, without the motivation of doing good from security and out of thankfulness, without the knowledge that the Lord Jesus will help us in our struggle and that it will all be over and better in heaven. Let's do our best to teach these things to our kids.

Not that it will ever be safe – for even if our teaching is right and true and as it should be, there is the danger of neglecting to model it. And there is also the danger of all our preaching and living being before little ones whose hearts are yet hard. We must pray that we will speak and act as we should and that they will listen and act (and in their turn speak) as they should.

Plagiarism: The Trouble with Principle

Stanley Fish is a generally sharp thinking atheist, who here hoes into pluralism. It's all been said before, but rarely so well. Enjoy the clarity of his prose, I bid you.

" . . . [R]eligion can be part of university life so long as it renounces its claim to have a privileged purchase on the truth, which of course is the claim that defines a religion as a religion as opposed to a mere opinion.

It's a great move whereby liberalism, in the form of academic freedom, gets to display its generosity while at the same time cutting the heart out of the views to which that generosity is extended . . . . [It] asks you to be morally thin; and it does this by asking you to conceive of yourself not as someone who is committed to something but as someone who is committed to respecting the commitments of those with whom he disagrees.

. . . .

[T]he strong multiculturalist faces a dilemma: either he stretches his toleration so that it extends to the intolerance residing at the heart of a culture he would honor, in which case tolerance is no longer his guiding principle, or he condemns the core intolerance of that culture (recoiling in horror when Khomeini calls for the death of Rushdie), in which case he is no longer according it respect at the point where its distinctiveness is most obviously at stake.

. . . .

[And besides,] [h]ow respectful can one be of 'fundamental' differences? If the difference is fundamental - that is, touches basic beliefs and commitments - how can you respect it without disrespecting your own beliefs and commitments? And on the other side, do you really show respect for a view by tolerating it, as you might tolerate the buzzing of a fly? Or do you show respect when you take it seriously enough to oppose it?"

Stanley Fish, The Trouble with Principle, pages 40, 41, 61, 66

Plagiarism: These Bodies and World

"I suspect that our conception of Heaven as merely a state of mind is not unconnected with the fact that the specifically Christian virtue of Hope has in our time grown so languid. Where our fathers, peering into the future, saw gleams of gold, we see only the mist, white, featureless, cold and never moving.

The thought at the back of all this negative spirituality is really one forbidden to Christians. They, of all men, must not conceive spiritual joy and worth as things that need to be rescued or tenderly protected from time and place and matter and the senses. Their God is the God of corn and oil and wine. He is the glad Creator . . . . To shrink back from all that can be called Nature into negative spirituality is as if we ran away from horses instead of learning to ride. There is in our present pilgrim condition plenty of room (more room than most of us like) for abstinence and renunciation and mortifying our natural desires. But . . . . These small and perishable bodies we now have were given to us as ponies are given to schoolboys. We must learn to manage: not that we may some day be free of horses altogether but that some day we may ride bare-back, confident and rejoicing, those greater mounts, those winged, shining and world-shaking horses which perhaps even now expect us with impatience, pawing and snorting in the King's stables. Not that the gallop would be of any value unless it were a gallop with the King; but how else - since He has retained His own charger - should we accompany Him?"

C.S.Lewis, Miracles

Richard Dawkins: Faith and evidence

Richard Dawkins addresses many things in his mini-series The Root of all Evil. He's lucid and persuasive, but the timeframe limits him to simplistic arguments which I'm told are much better developed in his book, The God Delusion. I thought I'd add my 2 bob's worth in regard to how evidence operates in the life of your regular Christian.

Regular Christians may not go to any great length to investigate the evidence for their beliefs, and yet they think that having evidence for their faith is essential. "[I]f Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead . . . . if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15: 14-15a & 17-19)

So why do regular Christians think there is evidence for our faith? Because the people through whom God wrote the Bible saw Jesus killed and three days later saw him alive. Many of them died proclaiming this truth.

This is how Luke introduces his account of Jesus' life, death and rising: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (1:1-4) And this is the importance that the disciple John places on evidence in his biography of Jesus: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (20:30-31)


For what is hopefully a thorough, reasoned and loving rebuttal of Dawkin's arguments, see The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath).

Men and boys

Here's my current thoughts about relating to men. Thanks to the godly men who have given me insider tips, who I have observed leading and disciplining boys etc. I'm far from an expert on the subject, not being married and not being a man - so I would appreciate and learn from anyone's thoughts.

One proviso before you begin: This reflection is directed at women and so runs the risk of coming across as patronising to a male reader. Please think of it as if I were teaching women how to follow in salsa. There is a real skill and character to following well. But it is not some sort of back-door way of women being in charge. It certainly does not guarantee that the man will lead well, though a good follower no doubt helps and is no doubt a pleasure to dance with if you are a good leader. And though I do have respect for the man I dance with simply because he is taking the lead (and because I know it's a hard job), he does also earn greater respect from me if he is a good leader (decisive, clear, respectful, fun, graceful, manly, oh there's quite a few).

Men, at best, are Men. They are leaders, whether humbly, of wife and family, or leaders of many. [Women too can be leaders. I am myself. But leadership is not part of women's fundamental identity. It may be true of an individual but it is not true of her, as a woman.]

Leadership then, is the key to relating to men - and boys. They need to see and to be treated with the respect we have for them. And if they do not have our respect, then it is generous and kind to give them the opportunity to gain or regain it.

The easiest way to show your respect for men's leadership is to let them lead. This doesn't mean women can't be heavily involved, it just means that men lead. [This principle should be particularly clear in Christian relationships, and yet it may be harder to spot - because Christian leadership is counter cultural. Christian leadership is still that of initiating, of making the final call, of protection; but it is also servant leadership. It chooses self-sacrifice, it is humble, it serves the other.]

But there are times when a woman is in leadership over a man - as a university lecturer for example, or perhaps running a short training course before church. How can we respect men's inherent leadership in these situations? Perhaps by deferring to them when we can, in expectation that they will be wise; just as we defer to other women, respecting their worth and contribution. We should also recognise that these situations aren't inherently disrespectful. They involve teaching of a specific area, which does not imply that men's fundamental, general authority is deficient.

There are also times when boys need to be told their boundaries and both men and boys need to hear of their wrongs. How can we do this without belittling them? We should first of all recognise that it can be cruel to men's egos to be constantly rebuked (just as it can be cruel to women's self-worth). So we might choose to let some things pass. We should realise that men are rightly ashamed when they have not been Men, and boys are understandably belittled when everything is prescribed and the initiative to be good is taken from them. So we should perhaps get rebukes over with quickly and only set rules when we have to.

We need to establish rules or rebuke knowing that men - people - are sinful. Yet we must also have the expectation that, by the Spirit, they will of course want to become good men. We need to look honestly at sin, grieve for it and yet have hope and confidence in our men and in our God.