AP Australia’s reformedevangelical periodical

WINTER 2013AUSTRALIAN PRESBYTERIAN

Silenced?Christians in the

public square

The cost ofsocial engineering

Ludicrous Islam lite

2 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

The prevailing wisdom today isthat religion has no place in thepublic square because

somehow, in some way, by somemiracle, secularism guarantees anunbiased neutrality while religion islaced with bias and irrationality. Peoplecan, therefore, be free to be what theylike in their private prayers, but mustnot impose their views - or even airthem - in the public arena. There isnothing particularly new about such anapproach. Lord Melbourne, inopposing William Wilberforce'scampaign against the slave trade,lamented: “Things have come to apretty pass when religion is allowed toinvade public life.” Presumably, this

EditorialKing Darius of Persia (Dan. 6:1-3, 28);while Nehemiah made use of hisposition as cupbearer under KingArtaxerxes to become the governor ofJudah, and so rebuild the wall aroundJerusalem (Neh. 2:1-8). Christians maynot always command a majority behindthem, but they have a legitimate placein public affairs, not just in terms ofliving Christianly but to put forwardChristian views. A society which buildsitself up on a foundation of secularismwill find that it is only another form ofidolatry. It is righteousness, not sin,which exalts a nation (Prov. 14:34).

To return to Wilberforce, he did notregard Christianity as essentiallypolitical but considered that it hadwonderful political benefits. He oftencited Colossians 3:2, “Set youraffections on things above.” Theparadox is that only the heavenlyminded can be of much earthly use.

Peter Barnes

would have meant that if faith in Christwere not allowed to show itself inpublic, then the abolition of the slavetrade would have lost its drive andmomentum.

The result is not neutrality, tolerance,and harmony. In the above example,the result would be the victory of theslave trade. In our day, it might meanthe victory of demands for therecognition of homosexual relations orfree abortion. The truth is that everyopinion in the public arena has afoundation in one kind of worldview oranother. If Christians cannot expressthe Christian view, the result will notbe impartiality but the triumph ofanother, unchristian, worldview.

Faith has a place in the public square,even in days when paganism prevails:Joseph worked under Pharaoh whothought that he was the incarnation ofthe sun god (Gen. 41:37-45); Danielbecame the leading president under

AUTUMN 2013 3

Advance Australia– where?

Politics is often seen as anunseemly business. The Germanchancellor Otto von Bismarck

once reportedly said: “To retain respectfor sausages and laws, one must notwatch them in the making.” While thismay be a truism in regard to politicalprocess, it should not be seen as areflection upon every politician.Clearly, there are some who stand apartfrom the crowd.

One such politician is John AndersonAO, who is widely regarded as a manwhose political priorities were alwayssubservient to his faith in God andsense of duty to the people of Australia.Leader of the National Party andDeputy Prime Minister from 1999 to2005, he retired from politics in 2007.

John is married to Julia and they havefive children.

John, you played a key role in theHoward government, rising toDeputy Prime Minister. What ledyou into this particular calling?

I really had no particular desire to enterpublic life, other than a broad interestin public policy and a desire to sharemy views on the issues of the day. As ayoung man I never had any ambitions

to be a member of federal parliament ora deputy prime minister. When I foundmyself in those positions I wascompletely surprised.

The immediate reason for my entryinto politics was that several seniorparty people, including my sittingmember, Frank O’Keefe AM, urged meto do so. Frank was retiring and hethought I would be a good candidatefor the seat. As a Christian, I saw thisinvitation as God opening the door ona new sphere of service for me, and inretrospect it certainly was.

Were there any particular qualitiesthat they saw in your life that theythought especially suited you for apublic life?

I became involved in politics shortlyafter the election of the Hawkegovernment. I had just become thesecretary of the local branch of theNational Party (not willingly, I shouldadd). One day in that capacity I hadgone to a meeting of delegates in ourregion and our federal member, FrankO’Keefe, made some comments aboutthe incoming government. He referredto one of them as “un-intellectual”,another as “someone who looked asthough he hadn’t had a shower”, and athird, who had no sense of dressbecause he came into the chamberwithout wearing a tie. I passed acomment on what he’d said, and Ibegan my opening remarks bydeclaring, “as someone who actuallywent to university, had a shower thismorning, and is wearing a tie, I’d like tosay x, y and z ….” and it caught hisattention. I think he thought, “thisyoung fellow can communicate”, andthat became the trigger for him tobecome my sponsor.

I was only 27 when I won the pre-selection – it was apparently a landslide –so I think I was too cock-sure by half,spruiking the advantages of youth. I nowunderstand why the wisdom of yearsshould not be so lightly dismissed.Nevertheless, my youth seemed toimpress the delegates and they decidedthey wanted someone young. I won theright to run for the seat for the party.But between that time and the actualelection in 1984, the electoral boundarieswere redrawn and the seat wasabolished. So I was left high and dry.

I subsequently ran when the memberfor the new electorate retired, and heprevailed upon me to run in his place.That was Ralph Hunt, a man for whomI had huge respect. He was a well-known Presbyterian and again I feltGod opening the doors. At that time Ifelt an almost irresistible call to continueto try those doors, even though I wasnot a particularly keen politician.

What do you mean by that?

I am much shyer than people realise,and I don’t enjoy the limelight. I doenjoy a robust debate, but that’s adifferent thing altogether. I have a realdislike of being in the media.

Is that for family reasons, or personalreasons?

It’s partly cultural, I think. My fatherbelieved that if you were going to be inthe papers it should be on the sportingpages. Otherwise, no decent humanbeing should feature in the media. It’salso partly because I find myself atvariance with the values of almost all ofthe modern mainstream media. While Ienjoy the company of many journalists,I simply cannot sit comfortably withtheir secularised, cynical, anddisrespectful views of the world.

Christians owe it to the nation not to desert the public square.

John Anderson talks to Peter Hastie

My father believedthat if you weregoing to be in thepapers it should beon the sportingpages. Otherwise, nodecent human beingshould feature in themedia.

4 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

Did you have any particular lifeexperiences that influenced yourdecision that to go into politics?

I think we’re all a product of ourupbringing. My mother died when Iwas very young and so my father had asad life. I was always conscious of thecourage with which he confronted it.He’d been badly injured during theSecond World War. He had neverwanted to be in the army and heloathed the whole idea of war and ofconflict. Nevertheless, he felt it was hisduty to defend Australia. That led meto have a deep commitment to duty.

My father was a nominal Christian buthe did instil in me his strong moralconviction that telling the truth was ofparamount importance no matter howsmall the matter. He also taught me theimportance of doing your duty, even ifI found it inconvenient andunappealing.

The formative influences on mypolitical convictions took place in themid-’70s, just before I went touniversity. I remember watching one ofSydney’s busiest arterial roads for overan hour in my last week of school. Ithink I saw only one or two cars pass bybecause the state had been hit with yetanother major strike that crippled theoil refineries. The Redfern mailexchange was always out as well, so Icouldn’t get my mail.

All this industrial unrest led Lee KuanYew, the Prime Minister of Singapore,to warn Australia that it was in dangerof becoming “the poor white trash ofAsia”. Public finances and inflationwere also out of control.

Not long after I began at university Iremember that the Whitlamgovernment was dismissed and I think I

really believed that I belonged in acountry that was in danger of fulfillingLee Kuan Yew’s prophecy. I thought mygeneration was about to lose the kindof opportunities that should haveexisted in such a fortunate country.

What did you believe you couldachieve through the political process?

I think with the benefit of hindsight Iwas a little naïve at the beginning. Ihave always believed that politics wasimportant. For me, this meantcommunicating and translating goodideas into public policy. I wasconvinced this could be achievedthrough constructive debates whereideas are presented in mutuallyrespectful ways. I thought that it wasalmost impossible to achieve goodpublic policy outcomes from distortedand dishonest debate.

Sadly, our society is now so dominatedby the influence of moral relativismthat debates are rarely decided on themerits of the case. In fact, politicaldiscourse has become so debased thatcapable people with good ideas holdback because they don’t want to bedemonised when their views runcounter to the prevailing “politicalcorrectness”. As we listen to all the hypeabout how our best days are still infront of us, I don’t think we will find away forward because we don’t knowhow to have an honest debate anymore.Although there are ways forward forAustralia, I am not confident that wewill secure that future.

You are obviously concerned aboutthe present political process inAustralia and its captivity torelativism and “spin”. Howimportant is a strong moral sense topolitics?

Politicians need to have strong moralsensibilities. I was fascinated to read ina recent editorial of The Asian WallStreet Journal this statement: “AsWestern culture asserts ever moreproudly the superiority of its moralrelativism, the more it might want tolisten to religious traditions that argueon behalf of moral absolutes and theinherent dignity of every humanbeing.”

I don’t think I could have put it anymore effectively. We need to realise thata debate conducted according to therules of moral relativism will be adebate that very often fails to get to thetruth of the matter, because the speakerand the audience believe that truth isboth elusive and relative. I think this isa really serious situation and explainswhy politics is viewed by so many withdisfavour.

Are politicians the ones to blame forthis failure?

They are partly to blame. However,politicians are members of the broadersociety that put them there; they mostoften reflect the values of theirconstituents.

Recently at a large breakfast function awoman asked me: “Are you distressedby the standards of current publicdebate?” I replied by asking her:“Before I answer your question, may Iask how you feel about the way yourchildren and grandchildrencommunicate with one another insocial media behind the anonymity of akeyboard?” I sensed instantly that thewhole room got the point. We’vethrown civility away. I think that what’shappening in Canberra, MacquarieStreet, other state parliaments, and inlocal government. It’s a reflection,unfortunately, of where we are as asociety. When people ask me, “whycan’t we have a more reasoned debate?”my response is that we can have such adebate if we allow others the courtesyto present their views without beinginterrupted, ridiculed and demonisedfor what they say. Until this happens,the possibility of fruitful debate willelude us.

Do you think the church is in somedegree responsible for this state ofaffairs?

I suspect that one day God will put thechurch on the mat and asked why it hasheld on to the truth so lightly. In manysections of the Christian church peopleare no longer convinced that the truthis embodied in the person of JesusChrist and that the Scriptures are trueand trustworthy. This is what isundoing us in the church.

It’s not politicalreform we need. It’sa recovery of thebeliefs that drove thevalues that drove theethics that made usa free society.

AUTUMN 2013 5

I was fascinated to hear a very seniorAsian western observer say, “The Westhas become such a vacuumphilosophically that it doesn’t knowhow to handle the strength of Islamicbelief ”. I think he made a very goodpoint. Many Christians have lostconfidence in the reliability of the Bibleand this, in turn, has left us uncertainand directionless in what we believeand how we should act.

Are some politicians too utopian intheir hope for political reform?

Yes, because it’s not political reform weneed. It’s a recovery of the beliefs thatdrove the values that drove the ethicsthat made us a free society.

As a Christian, are you concernedabout governments becomingincreasingly intrusive andinterventionist?

I believe governments have animportant but limited role. I think weneed to understand that the idea ofseparation of church and state is abiblical one. It surely derives from Jesus’statement that we are to “render untoCaesar that which is Caesar’s, and toGod that which is God’s”. We plainlyhave government for a good purpose:Paul says it is God’s agent to promoteorder, discipline and to restrain evil insociety.

Since government is given the “powerof the sword” to contain wickedness,authorities clearly have a responsibilityto restrain evil in their owncommunities and to protect citizensagainst external threats. Frankly, I findit staggering that Australia now has thelowest defence budget in real termssince the 1930s, which was a verydangerous and unstable time. It wasstupid then and it makes no sense now.We are living in a very unstable worldwith all sorts of tensions to the north. Ithink we are mistaken if we believe thatwe’ll be given our place at theinternational table when we are busilydecimating our defence budget.

Conversely, I also think governmentsare involved in too many things thatdon’t concern them. I don’t thinkgovernments should be dictating ourcultural values or insisting that our

children be taught revisionist history.Nevertheless, politicians think theyshould be providing the nation with itscultural narrative and the “true” storyof our past. That has only happenedbecause our society no longer has anoverarching explanation of our past andpresent to which everyone subscribes.The fact that we’ve got to a stage wheresuch a narrative is being provided bypeople for whom we have little respect– members of the political class – tellsus something about our presentcondition.

I know I am using strong language butmy great hope is that the situation inAustralia can be reversed. However, ourfuture will only be secured if wesuccessfully confront the challengesbefore us. This will require a differentset of attitudes reflected in betterparliamentary debate and a greaterwillingness to own the decisions thatarise from it, even if from time to timethey are uncomfortable or makedemands of us that we would prefer toavoid.

Do you think the government ismaking unwarranted intrusions intoour lives today?

I have already mentioned how thepolitical class is re-writing our culturalvalues, which I think is regrettable.

Beyond that, I am very concernedabout the government’s approach topublic finance. We’re in danger of goingdown the European road, where peoplethink that it’s the government’s job –which really means the tax-payers’ job –to look after us.

Ever since the 1960s our society hasincreasingly become self-obsessed, andnarcissistic. Self-gratification hasbecome the order of the day and peopleare obsessed with material comfort.This has led to irresponsible borrowingand unpaid debt. And when debts can’tbe paid people have said, “Well, thegovernment – meaning, the tax-payers– must bail us out.” And thengovernments, made up of politicianswanting to be elected, have said “yes”,all too often.

Do you think religious freedom is abig issue in the West today?

Absolutely. The most basic andfundamental right of any man orwoman in a free society is freedom ofthought and belief, and then the rightto express that belief. It is beingsacrificed today. I have little doubt thatif we continue down the current roadin a whole range of areas, it will becomeimpossible and even illegal forChristians to express many of theirbeliefs in the public square. I can

I find it staggering that Australia now has thelowest defence budget since the 1930s. Itwas stupid then and it makes no sense now.

foresee a situation where my childrenwill not be able to tell their children, asthat the best place for sex is in theconfines of a happy, committed,heterosexual relationship. It’s quitepossible that in a few years’ time thatwould land them in court.

Are there other areas where you feelsome deep concern?

One issue that concerns me is theproposed use of anti-discriminationlegislation to restrain the right of

churches and Christian institutions,including schools, to employ peoplewho subscribe to their beliefs andvalues. I think those tendencies are verydangerous. I find it staggering that it’sso easy now to mock the church andChristian values. People ignore not onlythe basis for our free, civilised, andprosperous society, but fail to recognisethat if you don’t occasionally tend tothe soil in which the crops of yourfreedoms are grown, the crop will oneday fail.

Are you satisfied that ourWestminster federal system ofgovernment is in Australia”s bestinterests?

Yes, I believe it’s an unbelievableblessing. I am not convinced that weshould revise our form of Westminstergovernment because I don’t think theproblem lies in the structure that ourforefathers devised. I believe, “If it ain’tbroke, don’t fix it”.

I think the acknowledgment of the

dignity of each individual and theirright to have a say in their lives in thepublic sphere via the vote is awonderful privilege. However, builtinto it are the checks and balances thatno one individual can obtain power orexercise it for too long. And thosethings reflect our dual nature. We arestamped with the dignity of God andyet destroyed by our own self-serving.

What do you think is the mostfruitful means of bringing aboutsocial renewal in a society today?

I believe that society is only the sumand total of the individuals that make itup. If change is to occur it will takeplace only because people aretransformed by the renewing of theirminds. It was the transformation ofsufficient European minds (particularlyin Great Britain) through theReformation and the subsequent greatrevivals that so civilised our society.What a tragedy if we were to throw itaway forever.

6 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

The most basic andfundamental right ofany man or woman ina free society isfreedom of thoughtand belief, and thenthe right to expressthat belief.

AUTUMN 2013 7

At last year’s atheist convention inMelbourne a very earnest woman fromthe US-based Freedom from ReligionFoundation spoke of the importantwork her organisation was doing. Sheconcluded with their latest success: theyhad won a court challenge to preventuniversity football players in Alabamapraying as a team before games.

She did not say the foundation knew ofeven one player who regarded it as animposition or an offence. This, after all,is deep in America’s Bible Belt. Nor didshe say why a few devout peoplepraying before a game was an evil thatmust be eradicated; she may haveregarded it as self-evident, though iteluded me.

There are circumstances where aFreedom from Religion Foundationwould seem an excellent idea. Try thoseparts of Pakistan where Sunni and ShiaMuslims are butchering each other withsuicide bombs, at least when they taketime out from burning Christian homesand churches or persecuting minoritysects. But prayer before a football gamein Alabama is not the worst iniquitythat needs to be overcome.

There are two sorts of people inparticular who dislike religious viewsbeing expressed in the public domain.The first is those whom the religiousviews are criticising, usually politiciansof one stripe or the other, of whichmore below.

The second – far less tolerant, far moreinsidious – consists of militantsecularists who argue that religion isself-evidently irrational, seeks to imposeoutmoded views on others, andtherefore must be eliminated from the

public conversation.

The self-interest of the first group isusually self-evident. It is easy tounderstand how a politician whosepolicies are being criticised as less thanChrist-like might want his or herclerical critics to confine theircomments to matters of personal piety.

But the second group is equally self-interested. Religious people, they argue,are already biased, not to mentionirrational, so what they say can bediscounted. The conceit (in both sensesof the word, a fanciful notion andunwarranted pride) is that theythemselves are neutral,presuppositionless, ideology-free, clear-sighted and utterly rational.

They point the finger at the allegedelitism, narrow-mindedness andtotalitarian tendencies of religiousvoices, forgetting that pointing onefinger at an opponent means the otherthree are pointing back at oneself. Oneof the hallmarks of totalitarianism, ofcourse, is suppressing dissenting voices.

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote an opinionpiece for The Age replying to one bythen-Foreign Minister AlexanderDowner, who had been irked by somecriticism of the Coalition Government’spolicy by senior church figures andaccused them of chasing “cheapheadlines”.

It ran under the headline “Sorry, MrDowner, we do need our meddlesomepriests”, and I reproduce it because it isstill relevant, especially in an electionyear. It was, of course, aimed at agenerally secular audience.

I noted that Downer was not the first

politician to resent religiousinterference, nor the last. Obviousexamples include Margaret Thatcher’sirritation at the presumptuous prelateswho opposed economic rationalism andthe traditional antipathy of peoplecalled Henry for people calledThomas – for example, Henry II andThomas Beckett, or Henry VIII andThomas More.

MeddlesomeChristians

Barney ZwartzWhy Christian voices are vital to political debate

The Old Testamenthas much, muchmore emphasis onwhat we now callsocial justice andeconomicexploitation than thefamily values andpersonal moralspoliticians believe arethe proper preserveof the church.

Then there’s Ahab, 9th century BCking of Israel and husband of Jezebel.He contended with two prophets:Elijah, who fled into exile, andMicaiah, who was imprisoned for(accurately) predicting the wickedking’s death in battle.

Even Ahab was following earlierfootsteps. Israel’s very first king, Saul,soon fell foul of the prophet and judgeSamuel, and earlier still Mosescommanded Pharaoh to let his peoplego, that they might worship God.

8 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

Thus, unfortunately for Downer, hewas shaking his fist at a traditionstretching back more than 3000 years.The Judeo-Christian history is repletewith religious leaders demanding thatpolitical leaders turn aside to considerjustice.

The Old Testament has much, muchmore emphasis on what we now callsocial justice and economic exploitationthan the family values and personalmorals politicians believe are the properpreserve of the church. The propheticvoice is primarily about repentance.

Amos is typical when he fulminatesagainst those who “turn justice intobitterness and cast righteousness to theground”, who “trample on the poor”,and “deprive the poor of justice in thecourts” (Amos 5).

In the New Testament, the Apostle Petermakes the principle clear in Acts 5:29,when he tells the religious rulers that hemust obey God rather than them.

In fairness to Alexander Downer, thatdecade-old speech was carefullynuanced. He recognised the church’sright to join political debate, butcomplained it too often sought cheapheadlines. He targeted bishops whowere “remarkably vague and uncertainabout matters which their faith shouldteach them with certitude butremarkably certain and dogmatic onmatters of considerable complexity andambiguity about which they have noparticular expertise”.

He suggested they drop the divisive“partisan politicking” and concentrateon providing a spiritual and moralcompass.

One might say fair enough. But,though Downer did not endorse this,he provided fodder for a widespreadview in the community that the church

should focus on personal piety, thatreligion is an essentially private affairthat has no place on the public stage.Just watch the letters page for theoutrage when a Christian bishop or MPspeaks out on abortion or bioethics.

By the simple tenets of democracy, suchresentment is utterly misplaced.Certainly in a pluralist society thechurch can no longer expect to be thedominant voice, but that doesn’t meanit should suffer permanent laryngitis.

That so many people now believeChristians should be silent representsone of the church’s biggest failures overthe past 40 years: the retreat into piety.The Catholic Church, with its traditionof moral theology, can largely beexempted, but in many Protestantchurches the emphasis has been verymuch on individual salvation, on apersonal relationship with the Saviour,at the expense of the communal andsocial aspects of the faith.

But personal piety and socialcommitment are not mutuallyexclusive; quite the opposite. ForChristians, they feed each other.Christians’ love and gratitude to Godhelps drive their commitment to eachother, and to the poor, the lonely, thelost. Christians are called intocommunity – an entirely private faith isa contradiction in terms.

The subtext for political critics of thechurch – including, I suspect, AlexanderDowner – is don’t embarrass us. Don’tmake difficulties. But many in thecommunity want the church to doprecisely that; to take a watchdog role.

As Archbishop Mannix observed,politicians like to complain aboutmeddling clerics, but they only reallyobject when the intervention is onbehalf of the other side.

And if parliament’s clerical criticssometimes exaggerate, or seem self-interested, or simply get it wrong,politicians can hardly cast the first stone.

Ten years on, I think the debate hasbecome more important. Downer atleast recognised the church’s right tojoin political debate, but one of thestrands of modern secularism says thatnot only must the church stay out, somust individual believers because theircontributions are tainted. Militantsecularists are not at all embarrassed bydisenfranchising up to 70 per cent ofthe population who identify asreligious. And they strike a chord withmany ordinary Australians who resent“religion” having the temerity to try tointerfere with their pleasures orconveniences, even though theyotherwise have little sympathy with theultra-secularists.

Christians have their responsibility too,which they largely observe, to frametheir political arguments in non-religious terms. It not going to bepersuasive to claim “God says”, thoughin fact I never hear this caricature inactual public debate. In an ideal world,everyone would argue from rationalpremises that they could thendemonstrate. Few worlds are less idealthan politics.

Barney Zwartz is religion editor of TheAge, Melbourne

Militant secularistsare not at allembarrassed bydisenfranchising upto 70 per cent of thepopulation whoidentify as religious.

AUTUMN 2013 9

Some time ago my wife and one ofour girls went on a shopping triporganised by our church. They

went for a whole day, leaving meblessed with occupying six children. Idropped the eldest girl at work andthree of the boys went fishing from thepier at the bottom of our street.

That left me with the youngest two,Lily and Malachi, otherwise known assearch and destroy. Lily wanted Malachiand I to play dress ups. Lily pulled outthe big dress up box and starteddressing her younger brother in anurse’s uniform. Personally, I don’tthink he objected strongly enough.

She wanted me to wear a pirate’s outfit,but it didn’t fit and the sword wasplastic. Reluctantly, I went along withit. And for the next 20 minutes I washarshly and routinely attacked by theseself-appointed midgets of mayhem. Butlet me tell you something – a dad needsto know when the game is over. Sowhen Lily threw me the nurse’s

uniform, we had reached that point.

That is how many Christians feel abouthuman rights and anti-discriminationlaws. We are somewhat reluctant to getinvolved. We are not entirely comfortablewith the language of rights. We aremuch more comfortable with thelanguage of duties. And the day maycome when we refuse to play the game.

Nonetheless, as good citizens andthoughtful Christians we need to getinvolved in recent attacks on free speechthrough the Federal Government’s draftof its Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill” The intention ofthe draft bill is to consolidate the RacialDiscrimination Act 1975, SexDiscrimination Act 1984, DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1992, and the AgeDiscrimination Act 2004 into oneconsolidated piece of legislation.

However, the bill is a direct attack onfreedom of speech and, by implication,freedom of religion. No matter howwell intentioned the laws may be – andthey are probably not – if they arepassed in their current form the resultwill be a significant restriction offreedom of speech and religion.

In Division 2.17 various new attributeswill now be protected under law, suchas gender identity, sexual orientation,social origin and political opinion. Itwill be unlawful to discriminate againstthese new protected attributes.Discrimination is defined as“unfavourable treatment” which is laterdefined as any conduct that “offends,insults or intimidates the other person”.

Let me start with discrimination. Whyis all discrimination wrong? Should itbe unlawful for Greenpeace to refuse tohire someone who doesn’t share its

ethos? Should it be forced to hire awhale-eating, climate-scepticaccountant who drives a V8, justbecause he is good at accounting?

Should a Christian hospital bepunished by law for showing“unfavourable treatment” towardsdoctors who do not share its pro-lifecommitment? What is wrong with aChristian playgroup choosing leaderswho share their commitment to theBible’s teaching on sexuality?

Strangely enough, our Greenpeacefriends seem to have no problemsdiscriminating against gas-guzzling,planet-warming whale killers, but theymay well be outraged at the actions of aChristian hospital or a Christianplaygroup discriminating against thosewho did not share their ethos. It is anunwritten proposition in the exposuredraft bill that discrimination isunjustifiable and unwelcome. I disagree.

While the Bible has much to say aboutjustice and fairness (Lev. 19:15; Mic. 6:8;Luke 11:42), and not showingfavouritism (Jas. 2:1ff ), it also modelsfor us justifiable discrimination. Forexample, when choosing leaders itdiscriminates (1 Tim. 3:1-12; Tit. 1:6-9) on a plethora of qualities that wouldbe unlawful today, like gender,personality and household performance.It defies common sense and biblicalexample to legislate that people shouldonly be considered on their ability toperform a task with no reference totheir character, morals or ethos.

Christians should reject the unreasonableproposition that all discrimination isunjustifiable on the basis that bothScripture and experience teach us thenecessity to discriminate if we are tomake (any) choices.

Rightsand wrong

Darren MiddletonSocial engineering may criminalise Christianity

Christians shouldreject theunreasonableproposition that alldiscrimination isunjustifiable. BothScripture andexperience teach usthe necessity todiscriminate if weare to make (any)choices.

10 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

Now the bill goes further, because itdefines discrimination as any conductthat “offends, insults or intimidates theother person”. Let’s be honest, whilesome people have thick skins others aremasters at taking offence, and onecould imagine that a lively discussion onhomosexuality or politics could easilyoffend or insult someone’s sensibilities.

My father has political leanings withwhich I regularly and vigorously engage(think socialism). Picture an animateddiscussion over lunch at a localsteakhouse. We have already arguedover the futility of a carbon tax whileingesting our entrée of garlic bread, andwe’re not even half way through themain course when in exasperation hecalls me a stupid, Liberal-voting,intellectual pygmy. Now putting asidethe tautology, I may well feel a littleoffended or insulted, but shouldoffending or insulting someone’s“political opinion” be deemed illegal?And if it is, can you imagine theimplications for free speech?

If we cannot insult or offend someoneon the basis of their “protectedattribute” we are going to effectivelyshut down debate in the public square

on controversial issues. Even if insultingor offending people is rude, it shouldnot be unlawful. While it may be rudeto debate or even reflect on someone’ssocial origin (housing estate) orpolitical opinion (Greens) or sexuality(homosexual) or race (aboriginality), itshould not be illegal. Similarly, whenRichard Dawkins reflects onChristianity as a “virus” and teaching itto children as “child abuse”, while it isoffensive it shouldn’t be unlawful.

The implications of this proposedlegislation are profound even if not yetfully appreciated. It is fair to say thatwe are witnessing the beginning of thecriminalisation of Christianity and freespeech. And while “no snowflake in anavalanche ever feels responsible” youdon’t have to be a prophet, or adaughter of a prophet, to see that eachcase, each judgment, each new piece ofanti-discrimination law threatens tobury the human right of freedom ofreligion and speech under the avalancheof selective rights.

It is important to note the differencebetween human rights and selectiverights. Human rights are those rightsthat belong to all humans, at all times

and are absolute. Historically, humanrights have included such things asfreedom of speech and religion, right tolife, right to property, a right to a fairtrial. So slavery, torture, or arbitrarydetention are all denials of human rights.They are often called liberty rights.Selective rights are rights attributed toselect groups based on a racial, sexual orpolitical basis. These are not humanrights, but special rights, since they arenot universal.

Specials right afforded to Aboriginals,homosexuals or even Christians –whatever we think about them – are nothuman rights but selective rights sincethey only relate to certain groupspredicated on ethnicity, sexuality or belief.What we are witnessing is the triumph ofselective rights of gender, sexuality andpolitical opinion over universal humanrights to freedom of speech and freedomof religion. If the draft exposure bill islegislated in its current form it will beginthe process of the criminalisation ofChristianity and free speech. As DavidHume warned us, “it is seldom that anyliberty is lost all at once”.

Darren Middleton is a teaching elder atNorth Geelong Presbyterian Church, Vic.

AUTUMN 2013 11

Muslims destroy village

The authorities in Pakistan have facedsevere criticism over the destruction ofan entire Christian neighbourhood by aMuslim mob recently. Chief JusticeIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry saidthat the attack on Joseph Colony couldhave been avoided had lessons beenlearnt from a similar episode in Gojrain 2009 and a system put in place toprotect Christian communities.

Christians have seen signs signs of hopein the way the authorities haveresponded to the incident. The Punjabgovernment was quick to react, withthe Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharifapologising to the Christiancommunity and promising that theperpetrators would be dealt withseverely. Scores of arrests have beenmade.

The District Coordination Office setup emergency shelters and providedfood for the victims. And repair workon the torched houses and otherbuildings got underway almostimmediately. Police have been deployedto protect both the Christians living intents and the labourers doing the repairwork on their homes, and each familyhas received 500,000 rupees ($A4820).

Barnabas Fund

Bible rates again

It describes fantastical events, yet appearson the History Channel. The charactersare household names, yet the cast is fullof unknown actors. Critics have queuedup to slam it, yet US viewers haveflocked to it in their millions.

At least everyone agrees on one thing: a10-hour mini-series based on the Bibleis the most surprising television successof the year in the US. Defyingexpectations that a simple retelling ofthe Bible stories, including depictionsof Adam and Eve and Samson andDelilah, would not appeal to a moderntelevision audience, the series has been

creating headlines and major ratingsfigures.

More than 13 million viewers watchedthe first episode, featuring a cast ofactors who are often so good-lookingthat scenes from the Old Testament canresemble a fashion advertisement. It hasconsistently come in as the top-ratedcable TV programme on Sundaynights, and some reports estimate that aremarkable 50 million people havewatched at least part of one of theepisodes broadcast so far.

Experts say The Bible is revealing oncemore that much of mainstream USentertainment – on TV or cinemascreens – ignores the vast religiousaudience.

UCA

About 200 people came to the firstservice in January. The congregationfocused on the theme of Beginnings,deliberating over ways that success canbe achieved by letting go of past failuresand avoiding “mental booby traps”. Itmeets monthly

Royal Commission concern

Family Voice has welcomed the newRoyal Commission on child sexual abusein institutions, but is concerned it maynot tackle the right questions.

Research officer Ros Phillips said: “Somecommunity leaders say new protocolswill detect paedophiles in or applyingfor positions in churches, schools andother groups so they no longer have theopportunity to do the great damagedone in past years. But the reality is thatchild sex abuse is increasing – and it isoften perpetrated by children on otherchildren.”

She said that just before announcing theRoyal Commission the Governmentbacked down on its promise to requirecleanfeed ISP filtering.

Prayer popular in UK

Britain’s churches may be struggling tomake converts but a new survey in therun-up to Easter has found no shortageof people believing in prayer.

The new ICM survey of more than2000 people, commissioned by theChurch of England, found that four infive British adults still believe in thepower of prayer. When asked what theywould pray for, nearly a third (31%)said world peace, followed by an end topoverty (27%).

One in five (22%) said they would prayfor healing for another person, while 5%said they did not know what they wouldpray for, and 14% said they would neverpray.

Not surprisingly, the over-65s made upthe largest proportion of people praying(89%). This was followed by young

World news

Atheist church opens

Britain’s first atheist church has held itsfirst meeting at The Nave, a formerchurch-turned-performance space, inIslington, North London.

According to London’s Islington Gazette,stand-up comedians Sanderson Jonesand Pippa Evans founded the so-calledgodless church because they wanted aspace where non-religious folks couldcommune and edify one another.

The church, named Sunday Assembly,has been “championed as [a] chance fordisillusioned former believers, nostalgicatheists and anybody searching for asense of community, to meet and turngood intentions into action”.

12 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

and religious diversity if armed groupsdo not respect places of worship.”

Barnabas Fund

Trinitarian baptism agreed

Representatives of the United StatesConference of Catholic Bishops, thePresbyterian Church-USA, theChristian Reformed Church in NorthAmerica, the Reformed Church inAmerica, and the United Church ofChrist have signed an agreementformally pledging to recognize oneanother’s baptisms when water and theTrinitarian formula are used.

In 1948, the Vatican declared that“baptism conferred in the sects of theDisciples of Christ, the Presbyterians,Congregationalists, Baptists, [and]Methodists” is “presumed as validunless in a particular case it is proven tothe contrary,” as long as “the necessarymatter and form have been used”.

A 2005 study conducted by the UnitedChurch of Christ (UCC) found thathundreds of UCC congregations do notuse the Trinitarian formula in baptism.It found that 78% use traditionaltrinitarian words of “in the name of theFather, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Ghost)”,

of the territory last March. Churcheswere destroyed and a harsh version ofsharia law imposed on the defencelesspopulation.

Barnabas Fund

Syrian attacks ‘war crimes’

Human Rights Watch has condemnedopposition groups in Syria for“unjustified attacks against minorityplaces of worship”, saying that theseamount to war crimes. Numerouschurches in Syria have been destroyed.

The leading human rights organisationhas released the findings ofinvestigations it carried out in Latakiaand Idlib governorates in Novemberand December 2012. It found evidencethat opposition fighters had“deliberately destroyed religious sites”and that the attacks had been carriedout after the areas had fallen toopposition control and governmentforces had left.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle Eastdirector at Human Rights Watch, said:“The destruction of religious sites isfurthering sectarian fears andcompounding the tragedies of thecountry… Syria will lose its rich cultural

people between the ages of 18 and 24(85%). Less likely to pray were thosebetween the ages of 35 and 40 (75%).

Christian Today

Islamists ‘large threat’

The French-led intervention in Maliand deadly siege at a gas plant inAlgeria have focused the world’sattention on the growing strength ofIslamist extremists in north Africa; theyhave been described by UK PrimeMinister David Cameron as a “largeand existential threat” requiring aresponse that may last for decades.

He said: “What we face is an extremist,Islamist, al-Qaeda-linked terroristgroup. Just as we had to deal with thatin Pakistan and in Afghanistan so theworld needs to come together to dealwith this threat in north Africa.”

There are a number of Islamist groupsoperating in north Africa. Because themilitants associate Christianity with theWest, Christian targets and individuals– as well as Western ones – areextremely vulnerable.

Christians were driven out of northernMali when the Islamists seized control

AUTUMN 2013 13

while another 9% use those words, butadd more inclusive words such as “OneGod, Mother of us all”, and 14% use“Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer,” ora variation of it.

CWN

Scroll scholar jailed

Raphael Golb, son of Dead Sea Scrollscholar Norman Golb, will head to jailas a result of his unorthodox methodsof supporting his father: fraud, forgery,and harassment of another Dead SeaScroll scholar, Lawrence Schiffman.

The case arose in 2009, when RaphaelGolb created fake email accounts and awebsite to impersonate New YorkUniversity's Schiffman, who disagreedwith Norman Golb's views on thescrolls. Posing as Schiffman, RaphaelGolb “espoused the views of NormanGolb and (again, as Schiffman) confessedto plagiarizing from Norman Golb”.

Raphael Golb was originally sentencedin 2011, when a New York jurydeclared him guilty on 30 of 31charges. He appealed the criminalconviction, arguing that he had beenattempting to parody Schiffman. Thecourt affirmed the lower court’s rulingon 29 of the 30 convictions, but threwout a charge of identity theft.

Christianity Today

Iranian pastor jailed

Pastor Saeed Abedini has been jailed foreight years for “threatening nationalsecurity” with his church planting,reports Morning Star News. “Thepromise of his release was a lie,” said hiswife, Nagmeh Abedini, in a statement.“We must now pursue every effort, turnevery rock, and not stop until Saeed issafely on American soil.”

Abedini was born in Iran, but marriedan American woman and moved to theUS, where he converted to Christianity.He was imprisoned in Iran after beingarrested while visiting his family inSeptember.

The United States' Commission onInternational Religious Freedom said ina statement: “The national securitycharges leveled against Mr Abedini arebogus and are a typical tactic by theIranian government to masquerade thereal reason for the charges: to suppressreligious belief and activity of which theIranian government does not approve.”

Christianity Today

Notre Dame rings purer

Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris hasreceived a shiny new set of bells.Immortalized in the classic 19 39 filmThe Hunchback of Notre Dame, thefamous bells are being replaced withmore melodious new ones.

Nine enormous bronze bells have madetheir way on flatbed trucks from aNormandy foundry to what is hopedwill be their home for centuries tocome, helping the medieval edifice torediscover its historical harmony.

The bells, named after saints andprominent Catholic figures, rang forthe first time on March 23, in time forPalm Sunday and Easter week.

They are joining the cathedral’s oldestsurviving bell, a 17th century Great Bellnamed Emmanuel, to restore the 10-bellharmony originally conceived for NotreDame’s bell towers. The cathedralcelebrates its 850th anniversary this year.

UCA

Faith key to movie-going

According to a new survey from BarnaGroup, faith determines a person'smovie-going habits more than almostany other demographic factor exceptage—especially if you're an evangelicalChristian.

Barna surveyed more than 1000American adults and found thatevangelicals reported seeing an averageof 2.7 movies in cinemas last year, morethan any age group except those aged18 to 28.

Large numbers of evangelicals turnedout to see summer blockbusters likeThe Avengers (42% of evangelicalsreported seeing it) and The HungerGames (36%). Fewer evangelicalsreported seeing Skyfall (12%), Argo(3%), and Lincoln (3%).

Christianity Today

Scouts delay gay move

The leadership of the Boy Scouts ofAmerica has postponed a decision on aproposed policy change that wouldhave ended a ban on openlyhomosexual members.

The Scouts’ executive board announcedthat “due to the complexity of thisissue, the organisation needs time for amore deliberate review of itsmembership policy”. The decision willbe made in May, after consultationwith members, the board said.

14 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

The proposed policy change had drawnan outpouring of reactions frommembers of the Boy Scouts andsponsoring organisations. The drive toallow homosexual members had caughtmany members by surprise, since justlast summer the board had reaffirmedits traditional policy. The scoutingorganisation was reportedly underpressure from corporate sponsors toallow homosexuals.

CWN

Putin backs Orthodox

President Vladimir Putin has called fora greater role for Russian Orthodoxy“and other traditional religions” inRussian life.

“While preserving the secular nature ofour state, and not allowing the over-involvement of the government inchurch life, we need to get away fromthe vulgar, primitive understanding ofsecularism,” he said.

“The Russian Orthodox Church andother traditional religions should getevery opportunity to fully serve in suchimportant fields as the support of

family and motherhood, theupbringing and education of children,youth, social development, and tostrengthen the patriotic spirit of thearmed forces.”

CWN

Church praises media

Father Robert Oliver, a Boston priestwho is the Congregation for theDoctrine of the Faith’s new promoter ofjustice, said at a news conference thatthe media performed a service inuncovering the clerical abuse scandal.

Father Oliver is responsible foraddressing cases of child sexual abuseby Roman Catholic clergy. He said thecongregation is examining 600 cases,most of which involve abuse thatallegedly took place between 1965 and1985.

“I think that certainly those whocontinued to put before us that we needto confront this problem did a service,”he said. “They (the media) helped tokeep the energy, if you will, to keep themovement going so that we would,honestly and with transparency, and

with our strength, confront what istrue.”

“Every single one of us begins withdenial,” he added. “I think the leadersof the church, the members of thechurch, we are no different fromanyone else. In the beginning ourreaction was ‘no this is not possible,people don’t do this to children’.”

CWN

Stem cell advance

Researchers at the University ofEdinburgh have developed a “printer”for processing human embryonic stemcells.

After the embryos were killed and thestem cells obtained, the stem cells wereplaced in a “nutrient-rich soup,”creating “bio-ink,” LiveScience.comreported. The “bio-ink” was then“printed” in clumps on to a dish.

A “cell printer” has also been developedfor adult stem cell research, which doesnot involve the destruction of innocenthuman life.

CWN

AUTUMN 2013 15

LudicrousIslam liteNoel Weeks

Intended to counter radicals, thenew history curriculum will likely fail.

With support from the MyerFoundation, the National Centre forExcellence in Islamic Studies at theUniversity of Melbourne has produced,in May 2010, a manual forintroducing Islamic perspectives intoAustralian schools (Learning from OneAnother: Bringing Muslim Perspectivesinto Australian Schools). Political,religious and educational issues areintertwined in this document.

There are many more Buddhists thanMuslims in Australia. Why focus onMuslims rather than Buddhists? Fear ofmilitant Islam, especially home-grownforms, gives rise to such endeavours.We face the threat of a feedback loop:the more Islamic terrorism causesapprehension and fear, the moreMuslims in Australia are likely to meetwith hostility and ostracism, and themore that happens the more they areopen to radicalisation. In that sense,this is as much a political document asan educational document.

The ethos of Australian education isboth secular and parochial. When that

secular parochialism encounters Islam,it encounters a perspective which isvery clearly religious and which has, asits historical foundation, events whichoccurred outside of Australia. How willthe secularity and insularity of theAustralian school system deal withsomething so different? That questionis just as relevant to Christians as toMuslims because, what the systemattempts to do to Islam in thisdocument, will be the approach appliedto Christianity.

This work is full of the language oftolerance, respect and solving problemsby dialogue. Yet again and again it isIslam that is expected to yield, notAustralian secularism. On sexeducation: “Muslim parents need toaccept that sex education as delivered inAustralian schools is necessary andimportant for their adolescentchildren”. On objections to mixedbathing and girls’ swim suits: “Theschool and the parents need to worktogether to enable all Muslim girls tolearn the potentially life-saving skill ofswimming.” There is nocomprehension here that a communitymight exist that has a different scale ofvalues than secularism.

That this is Islam, seen though seculareyes, is illustrated by the poem used asan example of Muslim poetry. It is bythe famous poet Rumi where heproclaims that he could not find Allahon the Christian cross, or in a Hindutemple or in Mecca. Instead he foundAllah inside of himself. Pity the poorteacher, led by this text, who uses the

poem as an example of what allMuslims believe and has orthodoxMuslims in the class. For Rumi was aSufi, a form of mysticism whichcontains elements of pantheism andself-deification and is therefore viewedas heretical by many Muslims. Rumi isfar more congenial to a secularist thanto a true Muslim or a Christian.

A good proportion of the document istaken up with examples ofachievements by Muslims. Thesuggestion is that, at appropriatepoints, teachers might inject these andthus counter false images of Muslims.Yet in turn this raises a larger problem.In many curricular areas the exampleschosen come from the great age ofIslamic culture, approximately lateMiddle Ages in the division of historywe use. There is no question of thegreatness of Islamic civilisation in thatperiod and the historical significance ofits stimulus to European cultures. Noproperly educated person should lackawareness of that great civilisation.

However, are these snippets ofinformation going to be anything morethan contextless, and hence largelymeaningless, insertions? Hence we mustdeal with, not just the secularity, butalso the insularity of Australianeducation; an insularity which the

This work is full ofthe language oftolerance andrespect. Yet againand again it is Islamthat is expected toyield, not Australiansecularism.

history version of the NationalCurriculum is likely to promote ratherthan lessen.

Modern relativist secularism believesthere is no meaning outside of us.Pragmatically, so that students may finda job, it will educate about thingsoutside of the autonomous individualbut, basically it believes there is nothingmeaningful outside of the individual.The only meaningful history is myhistory. Hence the small child cannotbe expected to understand anythingoutside his own world of experience.

The first three years are spent slowlyand painfully extending the child’sworld so that it may include the historyof his small local area. So ideologicallyblinded is the curriculum that nobodyasks why children who thrilled to theirparents’ reading of The Lion the Witchand the Wardrobe and similar literatureare supposed to understand nothingbeyond their noses.

In accord with the doctrine thateverything important happens close tous, the rest of primary school historymust also be restricted to Australia.Naturally that creates a huge problemfor high school history, especially asthere is a desire to introduce a moresophisticated Australian history in thelater years of high school. Hence inYear 7 the scope is 60,000 B.C. to 650A.D. How much background to therise of Islam is going to be conveyed inthat mad rush tomake up for theegotisticallyAustralianconcentration ofprimary school?

Year 8 is devoted tothe period Ancient toModern. The spreadof Christianity andIslam are treated butnot their origins.Schools may chooseto study theOttoman Empire as adepth study but thatis an elective and onewonders how manywill choose it. Besidesthe Ottomans are but

one of many manifestations of Islam.There is very little in the year 9 and 10curricula that will convey anybackground for Islam, partly becausethe curriculum clearly wants to leavethe other stuff and go back to Australia.

I come back to my previous question.How can an appreciation of the pastgreatness of Islamic civilisation beconveyed when schools are workingwith a curriculum that assumesAustralia is the centre of the universe?The document we are considering triesto make the best of a bad situation bystressing the importance of Muslimcamel drivers for the opening up of theAustralian interior. I do not doubt thatfact: I merely suggest Islam is muchmore than camel-driving in Australia.

May I return to the political issue: theneed to prevent Islamic radicalisation.Is what we have presented here likely toendear Australia to a sensitive Muslim –the assumption that swimming lessonsare more important than hiscommunity’s feeling for modesty; beingtaught a “blasphemous” composition asgreat Islamic poetry; the sprinkling ofthe names of some past Islamic greatswhen the history curriculum is toofixated on Australia to allow even themost cursory examination of theperiods of history that are mostsignificant for Muslims? I think it is arecipe for radicalisation.

Paradoxically Christians and Muslims

should have a similar concern with theegotistic narrowness of the nationalhistory curriculum. Oh that theChristian school movement had notgiven up its fight for a distinctivelyChristian curriculum!

My fear is not that this document willspread Islam. It is that its insensitivity,and the stupidity of the curriculumbeing imposed on children, will beintensely alienating for Muslims. Wemay have problems with many aspectsof Islam but let us remember that thereis much in Australian culture that isoffensive, and understandably so, tothem. In short, the secularist attempt topander to Islam does not take Islamseriously, and is likely to do more harmthan good.

Dr Noel Weeks is a former lecturer inanncient history at the University ofSydney.

My fear is not thatthis document willspread Islam. It isthat the stupidity ofthe curriculum beingimposed on childrenwill be intenselyalienating forMuslims.

16 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

AUTUMN 2013 17

EvolutionImpossible

John F. Ashton

Masters Books,2012

Mark Powell

The debatesurroundingcreation and

evolution struggles in that itrequires a degree of knowledgeinvolving the techniques and validity ofsuch things as radiometric dating,geological columns and the benefits (ormore precisely, the lack thereof!) ofgene mutation. This can lead many tothink that maybe it is best to treat theaccount of creation in Genesis 1 and 2as merely “poetic”, as some influentialChristian teachers have recentlysuggested. That way science cancontinue to say one thing and Christianfaith another – even if the two docontradict each other on certain keypoints.

Into the breach has stepped DrJohn Ashton, himself an adjunctprofessor of biomedical science inMelbourne. Ashton has written anexcellent little book (just under 200pages) summarising, explaining andfinally critiquing the evidence manypeople use to support the theory ofevolution. It is an excellent place tobegin to understand the issues. Thebook itself is well researched and theenthusiastic reader will find a wealth ofsecondary literature to pursue throughthe extensive footnoting. I wouldespecially recommend it for anyoneinvolved in studying the hard sciencesat university.

The major strength of Ashton’sapproach is that he writes from withinthe scientific community. Hence, hisstrategy is to provide hard facts (i.e.evidence) as to why the theory ofevolution cannot explain the origin ofthe universe. Ashton also illustrateshow scientific theories themselves are in

a constant state of flux. For instance,Darwin’s infamous “tree of life” whichhe used as a basis to explain his theoryinvolving change and developmentwithin species is now rejected by mostscientists as being inadequate and evenmistaken.

Last century infamous theologicalliberal Maurice Wiles argued that theevangelical doctrine of Christology andin particular the atoning work of Christrested on the historical error or“mistake” of there been a real personcalled Adam who fell into sin. Since, inhis opinion, the events involving theGarden of Eden were based on mythand therefore should be understoodmetaphorically, our understandings ofthe incarnation and of redemptionshould be viewed the same way.Ashton’s book demonstrates that this isdefinitely not the case.

Mark Powell is part of the ministerialteam at Cornerstone PresbyterianChurch, Strathfield, NSW

No Pressure,Mr President!

Eric Metaxas,

Nashville: ThomasNelson, 2012.

Peter Barnes

On 2 February2012 Eric

Metaxas, riding thesuccess of his best-selling biography ofDietrich Bonhoeffer, was privileged togive the National Prayer Breakfastaddress in Washington DC. Normallythese are rather innocuous affairs, fullof religious clichés. However, Metaxasclowned his way through a speech onreal faith in God as exemplified byBonhoeffer and William Wilberforce.Some of his jokes have a “you needed tobe there” quality about them, and someof his media references I foundsomewhat esoteric, although footnotesdid help. Yet sometimes Falstaff gets tomake a point, and Metaxas does not

hold back on abortion and the biblicalview of sexuality before President Obama,who has exhibited no commitment to abiblical view of anything, let alonesaving faith in Christ.

Metaxas regarded it as “a holy privilege”to speak at the breakfast, and was able togive copies of his two biographies to thepresident, and then to lead the assembledbody of 3500 in singing AmazingGrace. So far there is no indication thatrevival is about to break out in DC, butas Metaxas says, “who can fathom suchthings?” so “Praise the Lord”.

Peter Barnes iseditor of AP

Mortality

ChristopherHitchens

London:Atlantic Books,2012.

Peter Barnes

ChristopherHitchens’ best-known contributionto the literary world was God is NotGreat: How Religion Poisons Everything.Sadly, we go the way of all flesh, and in2011 Hitchens died of cancer of theoesophagus. While he was dying, as acitizen of what he called “the sickcountry”, he wrote Mortality which isat least a recognition of the universalhuman problem. Cancer came uponhim quite suddenly and he wrote: “Inwhatever kind of a ‘race’ life may be, Ihave very abruptly become a finalist.”

He died determined to be an atheist,indeed a blasphemer, to the end, and sofar as we know he did so.

This short book, of little more than ahundred pages, packs an enormousamount of sadness into a relativelyconfined space. It is all what theChristian has heard before. Forexample, Hitchens considers thatCalvinism and prayer are contradictory,and that Calvinism means that “it does

books

not matter whether you try to lead aholy life, or even succeed in doing so”.He does not appear to have noticedCalvinism’s claim, which is also theBible’s, that no one has tried to live aholy life, let alone succeeded. That,surely, is foundational to understandingReformed doctrine on the way ofsalvation.

Hitchens tried to maintain a whimsicalapproach to dying, and cited KingsleyAmis:

Death has this much to be said for it:You don’t have to get out of bed for it.Wherever you happen to beThey bring it to you – free.

Occasionally, there are flashes ofwisdom. He says that he stoppedquoting “whatever doesn’t kill memakes me stronger”, and wonders whyhe ever thought it profound. His lastjotting was “No person is whole. Noperson is free”. And the delusional lastword from Carol Blue, his wife, is that“time after time, Christopher has thelast word”. One thinks not. Alas,atheism poisons everything.

The Secret Thoughtsof an UnlikelyConvert

Rosaria ChampagneButterfield

Pittsburgh: Crown &CovenantPublications, 2012.

Peter Barnes

It is all too rarethat we read a book wherein there is somuch refreshment and encouragement.Until her conversion, which she

describes as a train wreck, MrsButterfield was Dr Champagne, anassociate professor in English and alsoWomen’s Studies at Syracuse University,and a practising lesbian.

The beginnings of her conversionmight be traced to a series of questionsposed to her in a respectful manner bya Reformed Presbyterian pastor. Thestory from there is a fascinating one,full of depth, honesty, and struggle.Mrs Butterfield writes of “the first ruleof repentance: that repentance requiresgreater intimacy with God than withour sin”. When Christ first gave her thestrength to follow Him, she did notimmediately stop feeling like a lesbian.Later, she writes: “Some people aresmart enough to learn lessons the easyway. Not me. I always need to fall onmy face.”

Mrs Butterfield has some strong thingsto say against modern seeker-sensitiveservices, and the watering down of thegospel. She also records what she hadwritten concerning her Women’sStudies 101 syllabus: “NB: Students areexpected to write all papers and

examination essay questionsfrom a feminist worldview orcritical perspective. In Spanishclass you speak and think inSpanish. In Women’s Studies youspeak and think in feministparadigms. Examination essayquestions written from criticalperspectives outside of feminismwill receive an automatic grade of F.Papers written from criticalperspectives outside of feminism

will be allowed one revision. Anystudent who is unable to write andthink from a feminist critical

perspective or worldview with a clearconscience should drop the class now.”

As in Australian universities, there arefew things more totalitarian than afashionable way of thinking.

When she was a lesbian, Rosaria rejectedsame-sex marriage: “Why add goodpeople to a sick institution?” But as aChristian, she married Kent Butterfieldin 2001 and went on to adopt fourchildren and to offer foster care toothers. In becoming a Christian, she didnot lose her capacity to think. On thecontrary, she has some strong things tosay on the issue of “cultural sameness”,and is discerning on how a Christian isto deal with an unsympathetic world. Inthe end, the wonderful lesson is thatGod is in heaven, and still at work inthis world.

Word Wise,volume 2

Bible Animals

Alison Brown

Edinburgh:Banner ofTruth, 2012.

Peter Barnes

These are twobooks designedfor quite young children, from the penof Alison Brown, a former primaryschool teacher with five children of herown, albeit now young adults andteenagers. Each page of Word Wise dealswith a matter of science from the Bible,and consists of a passage of Scripture, anexplanation, and an activity. Mrs Brownclearly, and rightly, believes that writinghelps learning, so the children areencouraged to write out verses andcomplete activities associated with eachlesson. Taken as a whole, the lessons willhelp children to connect the Bible withthe physical world around them.

The second book, Bible Animals, isdesigned for a younger child. Havingsaid that, I thought the colouring-inassignments looked quite difficult! Bothbooks are very attractively presented, andshould be put to good use especially inChristian families, but there may well beopportunities to use them more widely.

18 AP SUBSCRIBE FOR YOUR OWN FREE COPY AT AP.ORG.AU

AUTUMN 2013 19

Gospel-PoweredParenting

Author: WilliamP. Farley

P&R Publishing,2009

Don Kerr

William Farleyis clear abouthis objective:

“I wrote this book to centre parentingin the Bible, more specifically the coreof the Bible – the gospel. I amconvinced that the gospel is sufficientto answer all our parenting questions.”

Farley proceeds to lay out quite adifferent approach from most parentingbooks. He doesn’t focus on techniques,the “how” of parenting; instead hisfoundation is very much on the “why”of parenting which in turn impacts thepracticalities.

He breaks the book into 12 chaptersthat are very readable, each ends with aseries of questions that can be used forsmall discussion groups – as we did in aparenting study we ran at RevesbyPresbyterian Church.

The first five chapters focus on ourassumptions and understanding of whoGod is. At first this may seem anunusual starting point, but theemphasis on seeing how ourassumptions about parenting impact us,and then considering ourunderstanding of God as our HeavenlyFather, provide a valuable foundationfor the following chapters. His chapterson Gospel Fear, God as a Holy Father,and God as a Gracious Father provideclear outlines of how we see God andhow this should direct our actions andapproach as parents.

The following seven chapters coverareas such as the relationship betweenhusband and wife, the importance ofmale servant leadership, what disciplineis, showing that our parenting haseternal implications, and finally thelove that flows from the gospel. Thereare sections in these chapters where ourstudy group engaged in good strongdiscussion – such as the differencebetween the spiritual leadership of ahome and other training areas where amother may take the lead.

Farley uses some phrases andillustrations where I may have chosen

something slightly different, but thisdid challenge me to think through hisargument. In a small group scenariothis is of great benefit, as it provokeddiscussion on these areas.

The biggest benefit of Farley’s book isthat he brings us back to understandwho God is, and makes us grasp whatassumptions we have in approachingparenting, and then works to make usthink through how our understandingof the grace of the gospel works out inhow we act as parents.

Don Kerr is an elder at RevesbyPresbyterian Church, Sydney

Book available at Reformers Bookshopphone: (02) 9564 3555web: reformers.org.au

AP Response FormPlease send me my free AP magazine...

If you are interested in receiving the AP and are not currentlya subscriber please fill in your details below, and forward thecompleted form to the AP office.

Deliver to:

Name __________________________________________

Address _________________________________________

______________________ City/Suburb ______________

State________________________ Postcode ___________

Country ________________________________________

Phone __________________________________________

My Donation towards the costs of AP

Please find enclosed

Cheque/money order to AP for: $ _____

Please debit $__________ from my Visa Mastercard

Account number:

Expiry date: ____/____ Name on Card ___________________

Signature__________________________________________

Please send completed forms to:AP, PO Box 4014, Croydon Hills VIC. 3136Phone: (03) 9005 8256 Fax: (03) 9876 1941Email: manager@ap.org.au

$

AP is provided as a ministry tool through the generous support of the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

Editorial Committee: Rev. Peter Hastie (convener), Rev. Dr Peter Barnes (editor), Barney Zwartz (production editor),Rev. Stuart Bonnington, Rev. Mark Powell and Duncan Parker.

TrulyoffensiveTo hear only what is bland and innocuousis to be imprisoned in immaturity.Mark Twain is supposed to havequipped that “No man's life, liberty, orproperty are safe while the legislature isin session.” The situation may be evenworse if there is a Senate committeetrying to drum up work for anti-discrimination boards. At present,Australia has a Senate Committeelooking to revise and extend our anti-discrimination laws. It is proposed toadd “sexual orientation” and “genderidentity” as new categories to beprotected by magistrates armed withlegislation requiring interpretations. Itis also proposed to outlaw conduct that“offends, insults or intimidates theother person”. Much might be saidagainst these proposals, but let us notethree points.

The truth is offensive.

The Bible does tell us to give no offenceto Jews or to Greeks or to the church ofGod (1 Cor. 10:32), but this isreferring to secondary issues wheresalvation is not necessarily at stake. Onmore significant issues, the Bible makesit clear that God’s truth is offensive.The committee’s proposal invents anew and dangerous right. We do nothave a right not to be offended. To hearonly what is bland and innocuous is to

be imprisoned in immaturity. GeorgeOrwell has been often cited in thisregard but he deserves to be heeded: “Ifliberty means anything at all, it meansthe right to tell people what they donot want to hear.”

People took offence at what Jesus said,especially in His hometown of Nazareth(Matt. 13:57). When Jesus made a cleardistinction between the divine Word ofGod and human traditions, thedisciples were rather shocked and said:“Do you not know that the Phariseeswere offended when they heard thissaying?” (Matt. 15:12) If anti-discrimination boards existed then,Jesus might have been reported, and anexpensive court case might haveresulted.

These laws become instruments forpropaganda and coercion.

The most obvious recent example ofthis is the Racial and ReligiousTolerance Act, passed in Victoria in2001, which made it an offence tooffend, insult or humiliate anyone onracial or religious grounds. This led to aprolonged and costly court case. Finallyon 17 December 2004 justice wassupposedly done, and Judge MichaelHiggins found two pastors, DannyNalliah and Daniel Scot, to haveoffended. Truth is no defence in thiskind of case. What matters is thatpeople's feelings are hurt. Suchlegislation tends to undermine respectfor the law.

The whole approach is contrary tothe Bible’s approach to law.

An apostate Christendom has givenway on this. A Uniting Church

minister, Elenie Poulos, argues againstany discrimination on the grounds that“the miraculous healing stories in theGospels, regardless of whether youbelieve in their literal truth or not, aredemonstrations of a love that reachesout to those suffering prejudice, a lovethat challenges the systems, religious orotherwise, that force people to theedges of society, where they have nochance of flourishing.”

That is all very eloquent, but one isreminded of Mark Twain again: “Fewthings are more irritating than whensomeone who is wrong is also veryeffective in making his point.” If thehealing accounts are not historical, theyare hoaxes, and we have no reason tobelieve that Jesus is the Christ. Also, itstretches credibility to think that Jesussaw His mission in terms of condoningimmorality and sodomy.

According to the Senate committee,sexual orientation and gender identityare givens. However, sexual conduct,like any other conduct, is what peopledo, not what they are. The logic of thecommittee’s approach is that therecould be nothing in the sexual area thatcould be classified as wrong. Thiswould lock the sinner into his sin. Withthe Bible, there is condemnation byGod’s law but also the possibility offorgiveness by His grace (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In fact, only because there isidentifiable sin can there be heartfeltforgiveness.

Is the gospel offensive? I should hopeso. To remove its offensiveness wouldbe to remove its truth, clarity, andfreedom, and would jeopardisesalvation itself.

Peter Barnes

If anti-discriminationboards existed then,Jesus might havebeen reported, andan expensive courtcase might haveresulted.

the WORDLAST