Out of hospital, appeared to have survived temporarily. Our stays on planet earth are temporary. Thanks by the way to those who sent their best wishes in their comments on my last piece. Unexpected. Greatly appreciated.
My Anglican minister, who visited me, asked whether I would like to be included in prayers in the upcoming Sunday service. Definitely I said. We need God’s help, sick or well. For my part, I hobbled to a chapel on the hospital grounds at which a Mass is held each Sunday at 4 pm. The priest welcomed me, notwithstanding my Anglican affiliation. I followed the service as best I could, which was well attended by people obviously experienced in the order of service and responses. Mumbling got me by when all else failed.
Where is this going, you might ask. It’s going to how we apply Christian faith to decision making. Those of you who are not Christian are not really left out. Certainly those brought up in Australia, or in western countries more generally, are inheritors of Christian traditions and values which, implicitly, if not explicitly, beneficially mould and guide thinking.
The decision in question is the Voice. The Voice aims to give those who have some Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry an additional say in the design and implementation of laws which bear on those with such ancestral links. There are a number of practical and conceptual difficulties with this proposal, which I’ll get to first before trying to apply a Christian perspective.
First, all Australians tend to be affected to some extent by all laws. True, laws often fall more heavily on one cohort than another. Pension-related laws on older people, for example. But we all get old eventually. And taxpayers young and old must foot the bill for pension increases. In other words, most legislation bears on us all to one extent or another. Thus the legitimate ambit of the Voice is not at all clear. And, depending on how it is legislated, how it sees itself operating, how from time to time the High Court sees it operating, it could well operate sparingly at one point in time and very expansively at another. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to be a good idea to put a shapeshifting entity into the Constitution.
Second, it’s not clear who the Voice representatives will actually represent. There will be no voting. It would be too difficult (as I explain here) to determine who is sufficiently indigenous to earn a vote. Voice representatives will ‘emerge’. How on earth are they to reflect the different views and perspectives of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people facing starkly different circumstances? That’s a problem for all parliamentarians, you might say. Yes it is. But they have to subject themselves to votes of their constituents. It’s an imperfect process but a process which informs and disciplines representation. Who informs and disciplines Voice representatives?
Third, on its face, it is anomalous and discriminatory that any section of the population should obtain constitutional status and privileges denied to others. Laws apply differentially. That’s true. Aboriginal Australians are already eligible for benefits and preferment not available to others. Whatever the right and wrongs of that, it is not constitutionally enshrined. That’s important. It means that as circumstances change, applicable laws can potentially change. Look at it the other way. Preferment in the constitution is tantamount to assuming that the cohort in question will always need help. It is paternalistic. Analogous to the crippling effect of permanent sit-down money.
What is a Christian to make of it? There is no shortage of priests in support. Game set and match. Not so fast. Opposition to the “enlightened” views of Pope Francis in the Catholic Church and the schism in the worldwide Anglican communion point to deep divisions at the heart of faith. I’ll focus on Anglicanism. The breakaway group GAFCON (the Global Anglican Futures Conference) was joined in August last year by a group of Australian clergymen, in forming the Diocese of the Southern Cross. Former Sydney Archbishop Glenn Davies is its first Bishop. I covered it here. What’s It all about? The issue is the authority and relevance of the Bible in today’s Christian world.
The belief of those who’ve broken away is that the Bible is the sole, defining and immutable authority on which Christianity is based. It anchors the faith. It is the faith. It can’t be remodelled to suit prevailing fashions or lifestyles. It is tremendously inconvenient. It’s fair to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, which he convenes, representing the established Church, is not as wedded to a literal reading of the Bible.
Let me give my view of the difference. One follows God’s law so far as it can be determined from the Bible. The other panders to fashion. The latter is a feel good religion. “Who am I to judge,” the Pope said of homosexuals within the Church. True, Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. We should all avoid judging other people. But there is ample biblical authority to condemn fornication. Perhaps the Pope should have juxtaposed his remarks about judging other people with a clear statement about the rights and wrongs of particular sexual behaviour. Then, that wouldn’t have been de rigueur, would it?
The lax approach to human sexuality finds expression across other aspects of modern life. A pale milquetoast imitation of Christianity is applied to undermine efforts to protect Judeo-Christian civilisation. Apparently we have to be doormats to be Christian. Meekly accepting every offence; every assault. That misunderstands Christianity. It is not following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. E.g., at judgement day: “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”( Matthew 25:41, KJV) Not so cuddly and appeasing. An educated guess. There will be a one-to-one correspondence between milquetoast priests and support for the Voice.
To cut to the chase, a biblically-based Christian (the only anchored kind) would perhaps consider Galatians 3:28 as being definitive on the matter of the Voice.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [there is neither Aboriginal nor non-Aboriginal]: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (KJV)
I took the liberty of including a square bracketed insertion to make the point, without harm at all to the substance of the original. QED
[Been on a social media holiday, Peter – belated best wishes for a quick and complete recovery.]
Hope your recovery continues Peter.
Indeed there is nothing democratic in the Voice proposal and I see zero likelihood it will make an iota of difference to Aboriginal disadvantage while causing more division, disunity and endless demands.
Christians who think this will be some sort of healing are most likely, sadly mistaken.
Thanks Peter. This is very well said. Some of those priests and ministers need to read some Martin Luther (the original and King), Wesley, Wallace and other Christian writers of the enlightenment
An excellent article Peter.
I hope your recovery is going well.
Well said.
About the “robustness” of Christianity:
For decades, at least, there has been a serious effort made to “limp-wrist” Christianity and its adherents.. The enemies of humanity constantly “challenge” the faith by mocking what they claim is its doctrine. This is meant to drive the once-faithful into the dull passivity required of slaves.
The story of “turning the other cheek is a good example. “Good” people, it is now declared, should accept all abuse and violence to the point of offering opportunities for more.
This is an utter corruption of the meaning..
REAL people understand its true meaning:
If, in a confrontation, one is “bitch-slapped” by another party, the “advice’ is to “turn the other cheek.
IT IS A TEST.
If the assailant steps back and mumbles apologies, the heat is gone and there may be space for “healing”.
HOWEVER, if one is struck again, the assailant clearly intends harm. Their LIFE is now in YOUR hands. Take it or leave it.
In a similar vein”
Luke 22:36
King James version of Jesus words to the disciples at the Last Supper::
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
This is NOT a doctrine of passive martyrdom. Well may the Lion lie down with the Lamb, but not without some mint sauce being involved.
As Irma Bombeck quipped: ” The grass may be greener over the fence, but it is GREENEST over the mass graves”.
Thanks Peter. You have provided a concise argument for Christians. I will be having lunch with some very left-leaning ones tomorrow and will have some of your words up my sleeve. Handy crib notes!
On the milquetoast stuff, no we aren’t doormats but we are under specific instructions – do not return evil for evil but bless the persecutor. And no, not the blessing of a black eye. That blessing may be as simple as telling them the truth. And the other instruction – walk away. The trick is in the timing of either.
Glad to see you’ve made it home. Well, most of you anyway.
Great article Peter. Thanks. In honour of the season Chag Sameach.
eli
Thank you
We need the Holy Spirit more than ever
An interesting post, thanks Peter. I’m enjoying the comments also, particularly regarding ‘turn the other cheek.’
I’m a fence-sitter in regards to Christianity. Initially attending Sunday School and singing in the choir occasionally, the experiences of adolescence left deep scars and a feeling of (abandonment?). In recent years, I’ve been opening my mind again, though I’m far from convinced. I do acknowledge, and think we should be proud of, the Christian basis of many of our institutions, and have been disturbed at the erosion and undermining of our Christian foundations.
Regarding homosexuality, I’m somewhat uncertain. My belief is that what a person does in their own life is their choice, providing the following conditions are met: (1). They are not breaking the law (the civil law, not God’s law), (2). They’re not hurting anyone else, and (3). They’re not forcing their beliefs on anyone else.
Having written the above, I also defend a Christian’s belief that homosexual relations are against God’s law. (My position on the transsexual issue in minors is explicit: To passively observe while Neo-Primitives role-play as Aztecs and normalise the ritual sacrifice of children is abominable. We will ALL be judged (in the historical record) for not smiting within lawful bounds, such pathologically disturbed shamans and illusionists).
Regarding the inVoice, I’ve stated my piece on numerous occasions recently.
Well said. Christians throughout history have attempted to treat all people the same: MLK was a Baptist pastor who said essentially this in his ‘I have a dream’ speech. But now society, particularly on the Left, has decided to dispense with Christianity. The results of that are obvious and straight out of Romans chapter 1.
My addition comes from George Orwell: Animal Farm. This novel is a warning, not the manual that Voice proponents seem to regard it to be.
only got 2 cheeks
From a Catholic perspective (Tim Staples) and one that is far more logical than any of the ‘literal’ interpretations of this verse.
turn the other cheek.
Thanks rosie. Sometimes making peace is as simple as resisting the temptation to throw petrol on a fire. Too many mischief makers out there already.
Jesus is presenting a principle. Youhave heard it said but I say…
If there’s a difficult passage in scripture, another will clarify it. Matthew 10 comes to mind. And there are others.
Muddy:
Why should I lift a finger to support an institution that refuses to follow its own teachings, refuses to excommunicate those who take its sacraments while defying the very basis of the church? When its holy men side with pederasts and homosexuals?
For Gods sake, Christians, get off your arses and defend your Church.
The world is waiting desperately for religious leadership, and the Church refuses to give it.
(Not directed at you personally, Muddy. It’s directed more at the Priesthood who give Communion to people who go out and pass laws to slaughter the unborn.)
I was raised a Catholic, which I do not regret. I was totally embarrassed by walking out of a supermarket with an item I hadn’t purchased. The point of this is that society runs on the concept of private property. Not morals, or the various interpretations of. them.
Even tribal aborigines recognised the if you were there, you had to be displaced.
“Society” isn’t Christian. It’s just informed by Christianity and before that, by Judaism. It’s God’s way of displaying his character to humanity. He said as much to Abraham. Christians would see it as a form of grace, not for us, but for others.
Defending the Church is ongoing and real. It is done by obedient believers doing sacrificial things, including loving others, even the horrible others. They do it imperfectly, because we’re all rubbish at it. “Defending” the Church by other means has usually resulted in a sea of blood and not much else.
And now I’ve gone all preachy, which was not my intent.
Good to hear the recovery is going well Peter.
Top post.
going ‘preachy’
I like hearing the layperson’s thoughts/understandings; I read them twice.
Always I’ve listened to the words of priests and the Sisters, but have been part of very little discussion among family and friends.
No-one needs to ‘lift a finger’.
Every Catholic is part of the Church, not just priests and religious, and we attend mass etc because we believe that is what Christ wants us to do so.
Oh and where does the concept of private property come from and is that the only thing that matters?
What about family, for example?
Let’s pray for our enemies and it’ll be interesting to see how God answers our prayers.
Peter, the nub of the argument against the Voice is in your eigth paragraph: it privileges one group in society over all others on account of their race.
Galatians 3:28 doesn’t really come into it, as Paul is there discussing divisions within the church, the body of Christ. The Voice is a civil matter.
Not at all, that was well said.
I object to the term, Judeo-Christian. I would object to the terms, Judeo-Islam, and Islam-Christian. I feel it is an attempt by Christians to include Jews in their religion. I have never heard a Jew use the term, Judeo-Christian, but I have read it many times from Christian sources. Judaism, Islam and Christianity have many of the same sources, but they are different religions. I am a Jew and have lived in a mainly Christian milieu all my life. I have suffered many attempts by Christians to convert me. I have found those attempts obnoxious. The Christians who do it usually act as though I am unaware of their religion, and they are presenting something new to me. I am acutely aware of the pogroms, Holocaust, the Crusades and similar manifestations of Christianity. I have heard their protestations of peace and love. Unfortunately, the reality counters the protestations. One Christian saying is, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” I don’t want to hate the sin of Christianity, and I will try to love Christians.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [there is neither Aboriginal nor non-Aboriginal]: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (KJV)
The above is a quote in the New Testament that I don’t appreciate. We have a identity as a Jew or a Greek. If we become an Australian citizen we become loyal to Australia, but we still have an identity as a Jew or a Greek. Australia does not require us to lose that identity. Christianity does.
David Fisher
Plenty of Jews use the expression Judeo-Christian. Dennis Prager for one.
The reference to Jew and Greek by Paul, should obviously be read generally to mean Christians of any different race or ethnicity. E.g, New Zealand Christians and Australian Christians are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Not offended, Robert.
David Fisher.
Some interesting thoughts. I’m not going to pretend I understand, but good on you for expressing yourself in a rational manner.
“The above is a quote in the New Testament that I don’t appreciate. We have a identity as a Jew or a Greek. If we become an Australian citizen we become loyal to Australia, but we still have an identity as a Jew or a Greek. Australia does not require us to lose that identity. Christianity does.”
I suspect you read it incorrectly – it is not you are to “give up” your identity as a Greek, but rather that we are all humans, and all sinners.
For the Jewish part, well I suspect so to some degree – as most religions, you are with the “one, true faith” as most (practitioners) see it. As I understand it, one cannot “convert” to Judaism – one is either Jewish or one is not. But Christianity and Islam both accept the “other” if they agree and are therefore “saved”. And you are no lesser for having been with the “wrong group”. Certainly Christianity does not (now) seek to “force” your conversion, although it may have in times past – Islam appears to require such “conversion”.
I would argue that the Islamists are correct in that God is most merciful. To me, He gave instruction to the Jews, and men mis-stated His word for power. Then again with Christianity. And again with Islam. That God would offer you such a chance to see the truth of monotheism and His greatness is indeed remarkable. All three were, IMO, divine revelations to inspire “unbelievers” and that all indeed worked – at least until men sought to use them for worldly power, and to perform unspeakable acts in order to keep that power and divide humanity against itself.
As I have noted before, we must all come to terms with God in our own way – some require the traditions of a religion, others do not. Some come to it early and others late. But in the end we all do – when the “final curtain” falls, and you stand before God himself to decide your fate. I don’t believe he sees the superficiality of your attention to your religion, but rather looks into your soul to determine your worthiness, so that those who attempt to follow His word are rewarded, and their mis-steps forgiven if they seek such forgiveness for their imperfections – He knows who you really are in the silence of your soul.
I wrote this a while ago. It is a philosophical approach to understanding Christianity. Indeed, it argues that in fact any worldview requires these elements to provide for the justification of human knowledge, or truth or, in other words, to make sense of human experience or the justification of human rationality.
A worldview incorporates a valid theory of knowledge (i.e. epistemology), a valid theory of reality (i.e. metaphysics or ontology) and a valid theory of ethics (i.e. morality). Before you can assert a proposition (i.e. any truth claim or valid or objective knowledge), you need to explain how your ontology (i.e. your theory of reality) enables you to make valid knowledge (i.e. epistemological) claims. It is indeed circular reasoning. In other words, and for example, on what basis are the laws (or theory) of logic based (or claimed)? The laws of logic are also referred to as the logical structure of the human mind.
Laws in philosophy are universals. Ontology attributes the characteristic of abstract to universals. These must agree with the particulars of human experience for them to make sense (otherwise they are idealistic, and idealism solves nothing). Human experience — our individual human experience — is not of universals but of concrete particulars or particular sensuous experiences (and the summation of your disparate human experiences solves nothing). Even if you are confident that your experiences are superior, you still have the dilemma of knowing whether they are correct – true claims to knowledge, or, truth.
If there is no governing reality (i.e., abstract universals) that brings together disparate aspects of concrete human experience, then we are left in a universe of unrelated facts. The problem of bringing the diversity of the many (i.e. plurality) into mutual contact, into the one (i.e. unity), still remains. The many exist as concrete human experiences, or particulars, and are thus not related to one another. The action of abstracting from particulars to incorporate them into generalisations continues until abstract universals are obtained and particularity has lost its concrete particularity.
This removes the uniqueness of the concrete particulars (of human experiences) and leaves nothing but abstract universals (i.e. it destroys human experience). However, human experience as noted is of concrete particulars. To affirm only the particularity of human experience is to leave the concrete particulars of experience as unrelated and undifferentiated facts. This is the problem of the one over many. How do we escape from this dilemma and affirm confidence in (1) human experience, (2) the scientific method and (3) the logical structure of the human mind?
There is nothing in human experience that can solve this problem, because we are involved in the problem! One cannot assume the notion of an (eternal) prime mover without falling in to the problem of abstract universals. Only if a supra-rational being can embrace timeless universals and timeless particulars, can temporal universals (laws) and temporal particulars (human sensuous experiences) be valid. And this being we call God. The triune being of the God of the Bible possesses eternal universals and eternal particulars; hence the particulars of human experience can make logical sense as they are situated in an ordered universe of universal laws.
Further, it is personal, because God is personal, the absolute person, and revealed himself in the person of Jesus – the express image of God’s being – who entered the time and history of his making and chose to do something else that was beyond any necessity on his part to do – to suffer and die on a Roman cross as a revolutionary for his enemies (i.e. you and I) in order to deal with our moral problem.
A nontheistic system assumes the idea of rationality in general. The implicit assumption that the individual is the final authority provides for the determination of the possible. It is therefore consistent with the law of contradiction, making it impossible to accept what is proposed by the theist – that an eternal, self-existent God has created and controls the universe. That is rational which concurs with the individual as the final authority in predication.
It is this question of authority that is paramount. Philosophy, reality, logic and so on, find their place in one’s worldview (i.e. epistemology, ontology and ethics). The theistic or Christian position suggests that ultimate authority rests in the being of God. It is of course an assumption, but one about the living reality of a personal God. If you wish to couch it in other terms, it is faith in an object, and that ohject is an absolute person – God. However, everyone has faith. Faith is simply belief in the unseen (i.e. what cannot be experienced). Each of us has faith in many things (i.e. logic, love, etc.).
Lastly, the freedom espoused by a non-theist affirms that reality cannot allow that all things were created out of nothing, because this is unintelligible and a contradiction. The Christian affirms that created reality is upheld and maintained by an unseen, personal God, one who welcomes you to get know him. You can read about this for yourself in the Bible.
Great piece, Peter. May your recovery continue apace.
Thanks also, Kneel for that last paragraph. My belief in God and Christianity was set in place
early and cemented in the fire of a near death experience when I most definitely experienced a clear connection to the Divine. Completely unexplainable events that to this day I cannot clearly articulate. To those who have not been that close to the end, and accepted it as I did that day, I still believe that the only truly intellectual position you can hold on divine existence is doubt. That doesn’t prevent you from living as if it’s true.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that God must be continually exasperated by my repeated failure to follow his Word and my ever compounding sins. I’ve broken more than one commandment over the years. I accept that I’m never, ever going to be a perfect human being – and that’s the point. God won’t be counting up my transgressions, He will be looking into my soul to see how often I committed myself to trying to follow and live Christian teachings.
Albanese has just signed an Open Borders Agreement with India, a Country of 1.4 billion People, meaning that anyone in India who wants to move to where the grass is greener [Australia] can do so, and any Australian can move to India [absolutely no one].
Pearson, Langton, Thorpey, Burney, Warren Mundine, Jacinta Price, none of them have said Nuffink.
So, if they’ve got no concerns at all about an Open Borders Agreement with India, WTF are their concerns, and why should anyone give a shit what they think is important, let alone change the Constitution in a vain attempt to mollify them?
Just read elsewhere that India is described as “an open air Biological Weapons Testing zone”, meaning that they’ve naturally developed penicillin resistant diseases just by virtue of the way they live and that those diseases are now showing up in Australian hospitals.
One of the Issues that The Voice will address?
Don’t make be barf.
David, it works the other way too but in different circumstances. Pressure on a young woman to become a Jew because she falls in love and the desire for acceptance within the family. And, as you know, the ramifications for children of the marriage. It happens.
You can’t coerce faith, only compliance.
On the quote you reference, Saint Paul is talking about converts, he himself is a Jew. In a highly stratified society, converts were still continuing old social habits of treating the poorer among them as “less equal”, or demanding circumcision as a path to Christianity.
I have suffered many attempts by Christians to convert me. I have found those attempts obnoxious.
Jehovahs Witnesses doorknocking eh, Dave?
Do you think you’ll ever get over it?
What if it had been RenaWare?
Would you now be traumatised by the presence of a teapot?
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that God must be continually exasperated by my repeated failure to follow his Word and my ever compounding sins.”
Megan, I think He knows that you are trying and that, like all of us, you are imperfect. And surely an omnipotent creator that creates the imperfect can forgive you your imperfections – if He wanted you to be perfect, He would have created you so.
For myself, like you, one particular event stands out – I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say that in my time of greatest need, my prayers were answered. Not in the way I would have expected or desired, but answered just the same. So I have no doubt of His existence, nor of His love for us.
As humans, we are at our best when things are worst – which may be why things often seem so bad, to bring out the best in us all, or to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
In his Battle of Britain speech Churchill was able to speak readily of our ‘Christian civilisation’ under threat from the immorality of Nazism. It would be harder to do that today in defense of the West, although many such as me, agnostic but with an open ear to the Christian message, still hold that the foundation of our civilisation should justly be seen as Christian. So I suspect did many watching the coronation of King Charles 111 in a fully Protestant ceremony as well as being comforted in a Christian funeral ceremony after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth 11.
Thank you for being a Christian willing to share your thoughts about how to include Christian precepts into decision-making on the Voice Referendum, and other matters.
Keep well now you’ve been released from indignities. Wrap up warm this winter. 🙂
Peter, I appreciate your amendment and consider it a perfect summation of our current situation. Hope your recovery continues.
Dear David
I like to debate your reference to the Crusades and the Holocaust under Christendom.
My Understanding was the Crusades were a last resort to the mauriding and butchery by a large pack of vandals on theor race and on Christendom. Enough is enough.
This to me was a great act that left us to develop in a peaceful and respectful manner, with our fear of harm from others.
The Holocaust, I see it as racial attack which goes against the Bible. What happened was a small group of people who observed the behaviours of the majority, wrote down their thoughts and some found this severely offensive.
This seem to be a common theme throughout European history.
Eg Freud put forward the though that in bad times we invest God. Stalin turned to God when the war was going badly.
They bring in the idea of thought control which is now articulated.
Further re the Holocaust the case of Motlke V Hardin played largely on the German psyche.
Further there is the issue of integration by one group with the rest. To the general population the Jewish community traded inter married with themselves. So in business there first customers are fellow Jews then the rest of the population. To the general population it appears they favour their own and do nothing for us but trash up.
My father before his death, never talked about the war told me of the story of Lenin mate strode in to Lithuania, saw a doctor who did his best for him. This fellow sued the doctor for discrimination and won. The though is if we let these people in and treat them like we treat eachother, then they do this to us, this is not fair.
Great to hear that you have recovered, Peter
Your piece was brilliantly put.
Peter, it’s a good piece but Papa Frank added this (which, surprise! no media outlet reported):
Except for the many who don’t! My biological father did not make 40, his father did not make 40, my brother did not make 60……..