It's good that you exist; it's good that you are in the world!(quoted here) and:
I would lay down my life for you.(1 John 3:16). However painfully, reluctantly, carefully the decision is taken, abortion is the negation of these skipping shouts.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Behold, it was very good!
To love someone is to say:
Monday, July 1, 2013
thank you; please
"Endings are for gratitude, beginnings are for faith", says John Piper.1 We have the privilege to gladly live each day in humble gratitude and courageous trust. These twin blessings rest on our Lord's unfailing character - that which we have heard from our ancestors, that we have known, and that which we look to with the eyes of our heart. Because of his deeds, we may live as very different people now. For, who is grateful? Who lives with courage? And for those who do, do they live this way because they have seen that life might be better so, or because of something they have known, from a deeper, quieter, surer and happier place? This is the gift we are given, to pass our days in thanks and trust while we are yet part of this fragmented, nasty, beautiful world that is not our home.
1 J Piper, La Vida Es Como Una Neblina (Miami: Editorial Vida, 2006), 50.
1 J Piper, La Vida Es Como Una Neblina (Miami: Editorial Vida, 2006), 50.
Monday, June 24, 2013
This precious person
Child sponsorship really works. For that child. This article tells us all about it and with great joy. Of course they do - these kids', these people's, lives have been changed. All that support growing up, all those letters of encouragement, of a bigger vision, they have all paid off - and this from a Christian organisation!
And I don't know if I'm pleased or not. I mean, I am for all those kids. But what about their brothers and sisters and the other kids in their village or city? Because the way the studies proved that there had been a positive effect for the sponsor kids was to compare their progress to other kids in the same situation - usually their siblings. Who didn't progress. Well probably a little - "We even find some evidence for spillover effects on the unsponsored younger siblings of sponsored children" (see here for a little more detail).
Is this okay? I mean, it's probably okay, but is it optimum? I love the personal approach, the chance to write them letters - because I know that the even greater gift than an escape from poverty is the gift of eternal life, and I know this is something you have to tell people about, something that gets shared one to another. But is it enough to love the one kid? Do we need to be doing something for their brothers and sisters as well? I guess I see this as different from the times when one needy person crosses your path. Then, your responsibility is to help that one person out and leave the bigger picture with God. But this isn't that - this is taking the initiative to step into a situation. So are we still called to help the one? I don't know.
And I don't know if I'm pleased or not. I mean, I am for all those kids. But what about their brothers and sisters and the other kids in their village or city? Because the way the studies proved that there had been a positive effect for the sponsor kids was to compare their progress to other kids in the same situation - usually their siblings. Who didn't progress. Well probably a little - "We even find some evidence for spillover effects on the unsponsored younger siblings of sponsored children" (see here for a little more detail).
Is this okay? I mean, it's probably okay, but is it optimum? I love the personal approach, the chance to write them letters - because I know that the even greater gift than an escape from poverty is the gift of eternal life, and I know this is something you have to tell people about, something that gets shared one to another. But is it enough to love the one kid? Do we need to be doing something for their brothers and sisters as well? I guess I see this as different from the times when one needy person crosses your path. Then, your responsibility is to help that one person out and leave the bigger picture with God. But this isn't that - this is taking the initiative to step into a situation. So are we still called to help the one? I don't know.
Let us fix our eyes
Is there nothing greater than enjoying God? I think Bruce Pass would say there is more - for "a serious weakness of Ethical Hedonism is its tendency to strip away the inherent value of objects" [italics mine]. And, must we always enjoy our Father, in every moment of our lives? Here I think Pass would give a tentative no - "Whereas Piper says that an
act bereft of joy is not worship, the Apostle Paul claims this for another virtue, love". I think he's right.
Yet, together with Pass, I wish to commend and honour most of what Piper says, his very great ministry, and his generosity and vision in making his work accessible to Spanish-speaking people. And I love what he has done to affirm our humanness and help us see that our soul is right when it longs for something more. Indeed, I think the Bible encourages this sort of self-focus and self-fulfillment. We are commanded to look again at ourselves in the light of God's reality and urge our hearts to repent, be at peace and satisfied. And yet, even more than this we are urged to cast our vision outside of ourselves, to look on God: not so we might gain some other end, but because he is our all. To think not of ourselves at all, or at least very little.
I've been noticing some occasions where the opposite is true, when I think we look too much to our own experience. So Christianity gets marketed as the path to true happiness. And such it is, but it is more. It is the path to God. Perhaps we think that unbelievers won't see the appeal, but we may need to trust the Holy Spirit to whisper it to them.
So we seek to understand why God would have things a certain way, why he would ask us to first pray "hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done"; and our answer is that these petitions help us to keep our lives in perspective, remind us there is more going on when we are going through hard times. This is certainly true, but it is secondary. We pray these things first-and-foremost not for any benefit we gain, but simply because we do desire to see our Father's name honoured, to see his kingdom come.
So we are told that because we have all we need in Christ, we may - and must - always be happy. And while it's true that this is ever possible for us, emotions are unruly things and we don't always properly appreciate what we have. And yet, even in these sad times, we have all we need in Christ. This is what is real and ultimate. This is what - normally - brings us joy.
Yet, together with Pass, I wish to commend and honour most of what Piper says, his very great ministry, and his generosity and vision in making his work accessible to Spanish-speaking people. And I love what he has done to affirm our humanness and help us see that our soul is right when it longs for something more. Indeed, I think the Bible encourages this sort of self-focus and self-fulfillment. We are commanded to look again at ourselves in the light of God's reality and urge our hearts to repent, be at peace and satisfied. And yet, even more than this we are urged to cast our vision outside of ourselves, to look on God: not so we might gain some other end, but because he is our all. To think not of ourselves at all, or at least very little.
I've been noticing some occasions where the opposite is true, when I think we look too much to our own experience. So Christianity gets marketed as the path to true happiness. And such it is, but it is more. It is the path to God. Perhaps we think that unbelievers won't see the appeal, but we may need to trust the Holy Spirit to whisper it to them.
So we seek to understand why God would have things a certain way, why he would ask us to first pray "hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done"; and our answer is that these petitions help us to keep our lives in perspective, remind us there is more going on when we are going through hard times. This is certainly true, but it is secondary. We pray these things first-and-foremost not for any benefit we gain, but simply because we do desire to see our Father's name honoured, to see his kingdom come.
So we are told that because we have all we need in Christ, we may - and must - always be happy. And while it's true that this is ever possible for us, emotions are unruly things and we don't always properly appreciate what we have. And yet, even in these sad times, we have all we need in Christ. This is what is real and ultimate. This is what - normally - brings us joy.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Licentiousness and town criers
I love my mate Al's blog so much - it's ever humble and sharp and just interesting - like a cheese perhaps. Recently he wrote a couple of absolutely cracker posts which I can't help but share with you. One was about Ryoji Ikeda's Spectra, a visual art piece exhibited as part of Hobart's new Dark MOFO art festival. (Tasmanian never used to be this cool.) Let me steal his thunder by quoting from the end. His description of the festival struck me because, as a non-believer, I was once drawn to these things...
The other had to do with the necessity of spelling out 'the Gospel'. From the middle...
Dark MOFO is an extension of MONA. It's about secrecy and licentiousness and freedom and pleasure.
It's predominantly about embracing and enjoying darkness.
So the inclusion and popularity of Spectra is a wonderful, almost undermining, touch of irony.
The other had to do with the necessity of spelling out 'the Gospel'. From the middle...
It's not enough for the town crier to run down the main road enthusiastically shouting out "I have the most wonderful news of peace and rest for you all" but then not tell the townsfolk what the news is and why it's so good.
Women's rights X2
Australian Senator John Madigan (not the most charismatic guy ever) has introduced a bill seeking to ban abortion on gender grounds. A friend who is pro-abortion linked to this article - a fair-handed presentation of the role the federal government really does play in supporting abortion both nationally and internationally (through Medicare and AusAid), and a warning that conservative politicians may be angling to use the issue as leverage for their vote on other matters. All of which is, as I said, fair. But what really interested me was that the article failed to address, or even mention, the bill's central theme. It was all about where Madigan's bill might take us, never about the content of the bill itself - gender-based abortion.
I understand if liberal commentators and thinkers are conflicted by this issue and unsure of how to respond, because here we see two values equally cherished by the Left butting up against each other - a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and life in one corner versus the protection and advancement of women and their equal standing with men in the other. I trust (and hope) that all commentators would instintively recognise that it is abhorrent to abort a foetus simply because it is a girl (or a boy: but this would probably never happen - which makes the issue all the more pointed). So I don't think it's at this point that the hesitation comes - I think it's the implication of what such a concession would mean that gives pause.
To ban gender-based abortions would erode the essential power of the pro-choice argument - that women have a fundamental, enduring right to make decisions about their pregnancy. Now if this bill were passed, women could still retain this right . . . except when their decisions were wrong (and here we're talking capital "W", misogyny Wrong). And if it's possible for us to have it wrong here, maybe there are other times where our choices are bad and should not be honoured. Maybe this right isn't so fundamental afterall.
If we're going to talk about where this sort of legislation might take us, let's not just do so by treating it as some sort of generalised 'pro-life legislation', but let's actually engage with the specificity of its content. To have any sort of integrity, the Left needs an answer to the question, "Should a woman be allowed to abort their foetus when they find out it's a girl?".
I understand if liberal commentators and thinkers are conflicted by this issue and unsure of how to respond, because here we see two values equally cherished by the Left butting up against each other - a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and life in one corner versus the protection and advancement of women and their equal standing with men in the other. I trust (and hope) that all commentators would instintively recognise that it is abhorrent to abort a foetus simply because it is a girl (or a boy: but this would probably never happen - which makes the issue all the more pointed). So I don't think it's at this point that the hesitation comes - I think it's the implication of what such a concession would mean that gives pause.
To ban gender-based abortions would erode the essential power of the pro-choice argument - that women have a fundamental, enduring right to make decisions about their pregnancy. Now if this bill were passed, women could still retain this right . . . except when their decisions were wrong (and here we're talking capital "W", misogyny Wrong). And if it's possible for us to have it wrong here, maybe there are other times where our choices are bad and should not be honoured. Maybe this right isn't so fundamental afterall.
If we're going to talk about where this sort of legislation might take us, let's not just do so by treating it as some sort of generalised 'pro-life legislation', but let's actually engage with the specificity of its content. To have any sort of integrity, the Left needs an answer to the question, "Should a woman be allowed to abort their foetus when they find out it's a girl?".
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Neutrality's iron fist
Oh my goodness, I just realised something - a claim to neutrality is the biggest power claim of all. People who claim that their views are neutral and for everyone are no different from dogmatic Christians, except that they never actually claim to be Right - their fixed beliefs hide under the banner of 'Neutrality'. This sort of thing typically happens in politics and it goes like this. Christians are critiqued (/belittled/shamed/abused) for bringing their religious views into the political sphere. That is how the position gets argued for negatively. At times another step is taken. The secularity of the political sphere is proclaimed (never actually argued for, or even humbly advanced - but declared with the sort of self-confidence that implies that the view is, and should be, obvious to all). That is the approach's positive articulation.
Implicit - but never directly stated - in all this is the assumption that the secular view is neutral and therefore humane, peaceable and unifying (as over and against the loaded, niche, incendiary Christian stance). But it's not just this - this claim to neutrality is actually a hidden claim to Rightness. Theoretically, I'm not sure this need be the case (you could have a sort of 'chastened' claim to neutrality and I suspect many do), but, practically speaking, that's how it plays. When most regard it as acceptable, and even important, to resist, fend off and even shut down actions (like for example, votes taken by Christian politicians), influence or discussion coming from a Christian perspective, then those people clearly believe they are right to do so. They are no different to the Christian who baldly claims to have unique access to the Truth and who - more so in days goneby - does all they can to make sure the State and society does too.
And this is exactly what is being done in the name of neutrality. Sure, there are places reserved for religion (private conversation, inside the walls of the church or mosque), but they are decided by the people who hold the neutral position and are carefully demarcated. But never ever on any grounds should religion be allowed access to the houses of power, that seat where meek neutrality is king.
Implicit - but never directly stated - in all this is the assumption that the secular view is neutral and therefore humane, peaceable and unifying (as over and against the loaded, niche, incendiary Christian stance). But it's not just this - this claim to neutrality is actually a hidden claim to Rightness. Theoretically, I'm not sure this need be the case (you could have a sort of 'chastened' claim to neutrality and I suspect many do), but, practically speaking, that's how it plays. When most regard it as acceptable, and even important, to resist, fend off and even shut down actions (like for example, votes taken by Christian politicians), influence or discussion coming from a Christian perspective, then those people clearly believe they are right to do so. They are no different to the Christian who baldly claims to have unique access to the Truth and who - more so in days goneby - does all they can to make sure the State and society does too.
And this is exactly what is being done in the name of neutrality. Sure, there are places reserved for religion (private conversation, inside the walls of the church or mosque), but they are decided by the people who hold the neutral position and are carefully demarcated. But never ever on any grounds should religion be allowed access to the houses of power, that seat where meek neutrality is king.
Posts
