The suffering of little children

The Australian Royal Commission into the Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse reveals some revolting conduct on the part of church organisations and government authorities; but what is unsaid is that the behaviour was produced in partnership with a complicit social context. There was a tendency in the 40s to 50s and even 60s to regard children as lesser people, almost as objects for the application of authority against them, to regard church groups as trusted self-governing organisations that 'knew best' as they engaged in the (public) humiliation, terrifying of and injuriously inflicting immense pain upon children. Most parents hit their children and thought that it was the right thing to do. It was not. Police acted as though children were congenitally oppositional and failed to believe them, as did other authorities, and if they didn't, nothing a child said was important anyway.

However, churches should be influenced by the Bible and not society.

Where's the starting point?

There are a few candidates, but all together the scriptures structure the way church organisations should work and provide no excuse for the godless behaviour they abetted.

Let's start with Matthew 18:6. Our lord was so concerned that children's relationship with  him be unimpaired by the actions of adults that he reserved the most grave fate for those who transgressed it. This alone should have exercised church authorities to remove the cancer of evil from their communities. But it did not.

And churches should have known, as Lord Acton observed, that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The Spirit got there first, however in Jeremiah 17:9. "The heart is wicked...who can know it."

Knowing this and that we are all sinners, all prone to damage others, their guard should have been up, particularly as they saw people doing directly what the scriptures opposed: Ephesians 6:4 tells us how to raise children (and don't think that Proverbs 23:13 overturns this; it is a proverb, not a command; it is figurative not descriptive, just compare it to the extravagant language in other proverbs: do you really put a knife to your throat when you eat with the king, Proverbs 23:1-2?).

So what should a church organisation have done if it saw someone behaving against Ephesians 6:4, and not conforming in their manner to the vulnerable as Galatians 5:22 instructs?

Should they have kept it 'in-house'? Not at all!

Knowing the wickedness of a person who so acted, and that the corruption of power was at hand, seeing behaviour that was disjoined from a community infused with the Spirit of our saviour they should have excised the perpetrators from that community immediately (there's plenty of basis in the Bible for dis-fellowshipping evil-doers) and referred the people involved to the police, because the state holds the sword for the restraint of evil. Romans 13:3-5 and not the church.

A little Bad Science

How can you know that its Bad Science? Here's how:

Just like most urging of evolutionist authors: even Darwin was full of it...'just imagine'.

Whose beliefs?

In a local newspaper (it charges for web use, so I won't  name it) mention was made of the new NSW Premier Mike Baird's 'conservative Christian' beliefs and that these were connected with his rejection of so-called 'gay' marriage (I must say, we all felt pretty gay at my wedding...I resent a good word being stolen in a transparent attempt to legitimise sexual perversion) and single sex adoption (i.e. two blokes, etc.)

It was set as though his rejection of these touted twists to society were part of some strange 'add-on' to his thought world called 'beliefs', in contrast to those who supported such notions from somewhere else in their psyche: based on 'rights', I suppose, or 'choice' etc.

But all we have, is beliefs. Some people's are grounded in the revelation of our creator, others are secured by little more that the almost solipsistic triumphalism of the self; but this too is a belief; and, dare I point out, a 'religious' belief. That is, it makes reference to something taken as basic in reality. For modern individualistic westerners nothing is more basic than 'what I think and for no particular reason', however it is dressed up ('rights', 'choice', etc, as though these movements of the will hang somewhere in the air).

Thus, it is a contest of beliefs, not only about God or our contingent existence, but the way society works over time, the way the young are nurtured (and produced: same-sexism is, of course parasitic on proper sexual conduct that produces offspring) and the structure of marriage to provide an orderly method for providing for the welfare of mothers and children.

In these terms it is obvious that marriage of male to male is not marriage, or a play at marriage to pretend legitimacy of conduct, much like single sex adoption is a weird play at families that are impossible to produce through the conduct represented, showing it up for the sham it is.

Society has historically resisted such practices because they contain the destruction of society: in a single generation if ubiquitous, but still, it constitutes a 'death-style' to quote an American politician, in hollow parody of a 'life-style'.

Tips for atheists

On the Drum (an ABC discussion forum), John Dickson helpful gives atheists some tips about discussing with Christians.

He gets a few points for trying, looses points for being condescending and smug, but shoots himself in his foot when it gets to '6-day creation'.

Naturally, he steps around it on the 'popular vote' principle (you know, science is established by popular vote), but fails theologically.

What is hilarious is that many of the comments on Dickson's tips fell back to 'science' (admittedly, in a juvenile and superficial manner) to rebut his views that themselves start with an ungrounded creation: a creation account that has no real world connections is just like a creation account that means nothing; it is the real world as locus of our being together that counts. If God cannot make the connection in terms of the very creation that he authored, then there is no connection to be made, and the 'ground of our being' is not God, but as the materialists have it.

Thanks John, you've just thrown the race and helped more people to perdition.

Knowing nothing

I'm re-reading Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales at the moment; full of 'emporeror's new clothes' class of bon mots contra darwinian evolution, as it is.

Here's one:

All Darwinians have a remarkable asymmetry of mind where their own species is concerned. On the one hand there is the human life which, both by experience and by reading history and literature, they know a great deal about; but all of this they put to one side, as having nothing to do with theory. They have to put it aside, because of course this human life contains not a single instance of the famous Darwinian struggle, and in fact consists entirely of disconfirmations of that theory. But on the other hand, Darwinians draw endless confirmations of their theory form the lives of extinct or hypothetical or imaginary or impossible human beings, concerning whom they know exactly as much as the reset of us do: namely nothing. for Darwinians, where their own species is concerned, it's not what you know that counts; its what you don't know.

And that just about sums it up.

Evolution is for...'clever' people.

Steven Kates in Quadrant  has put it quite succinctly:

But, but … evolution based on sheer chance; on random mutations and natural selection? It simply doesn’t pass the sniff test. Only very clever people could believe it in that form without there being much more compelling evidence.

The New Atheists

Hop over to Thom. Aquinas College for a lecture on the so-called 'new atheists'.

What if Darwin was right?

The typical conversation with parents that I have at work goes something like:

"Your child has a difference in their genes that means they won't develop along typical lines (I've generalised the gender on purpose). I'm very sorry to have to tell you that they have a condition known as ARX (Aristaless related homeobox) mutation that gives rise to intellectual disability."

If Darwin was right and evolution happened as he claimed, I'd be having conversations like this:

"Your child's development has been a little unusual. We've done a genetic test and he has a mutation on one of his genes that means he will probably never fall ill."

OR

"We've run a genetic test on your child for a recently identified mutation that only boys get. If he develops like most people with this mutation, he will have a life of incredible athletic performance and social capability."

OR

"The tests on your child show that he will be likely to lead an extraordinary life. Your biggest challenge will be to keep  him intellectually stimulated because, if he is like others with this mutation, his intelligence will be extremely high."

But its not like this! We don't see beneficial mutations. We see bad stuff and heartbreak instead.

Same story at the Human Gene Mutation Database: not good news.

So, over to you, Mr Darwin...when will we see the beneficial mutations popping up?

Bernard does Richard

Nice post by Bernard Gaynor on Richard Dawkin's self obsessed ranting.

Galileo

Interesting account of how people today (particularly those unstudied in the history of ideas) probably misread the Galileo affair: too often as modernists with a modernist view of science and ideas.

Feyerabend in Against Method (quoted, of all people by McCloskey in The Rhetoric of Economics, Jnl of Economic Literature, 1983) has this to say:

Had the modernist criterion of persuasion been adopted by Galileo’s contemporaries, the Galilean case would have failed. A grant proposal to use the strange premise that terrestrial optics applied also to the celestial sphere, to assert that the tides were the sloshing of water on a mobile earth, and to suppose that the fuzzy views of Jupiter’s alleged moons would prove, by a wild analogy, that the planets, too , went around the sun as did the  moons around Jupiter would not have survived the first round of peer review in a National Science Foundation of 1632.

After all, they were Aristotelians back then (as most village-idiot evolutionists today are too).

Just a 'side issue'

It seems that there are Christians who consider the question of origin/the biblical doctrine of creation to be a less important element of the Bible's teaching than, say, the texts directly concerned with salvation.
This thinking is half-baked at best. Is it not important to salvation that we know who God is? He establishes his identity by his being creator, and not some creator that is melded with the creation, that various process theories (e.g. theistic evolution) would require, but one who is sovereign over creation, sub-contracting none of it to mediating factors.
The misconception I refer to above also misunderstands the Bible. It is not finally about salvation, this is just a way station to God's kingdom coming, and the creation sets the scene meaningfully for the great arc of scripture from creation, through fall to resurrection and the new creation. The setting fragments into meaninglessness if God's authorship of creation is other than he sets out, because then we have no idea what it is or who God is, or how he is distinguished from the creation.

Killing kids

I don't usually stray into this area, but it has become necessary.

How to kill children: it tells us that libertarians hate people and individualism is a berserk value.

Dawkins does Dallas

The splitters over in Rome gave me kind permission to link to this review of Dawkins recent film "Why Believe when You Can Dawkins".

Blind leading the blind

I saw a church bulletin today announcing a parish meeting to discuss 'governance and leadership' and a meeting for small group leaders.

Just to translate to Christian terminology and concepts:

The  parish meeting was to discuss how the church would organise its activities and ministries, with small group ministry workers/convenors/moderators meeting afterwards.

Nice that there are proper Christian ways of talking about how we come together in the charismatic community that is the church.

Pity that most want to borrow the buffoonery language of the world.

Who are you, God? 2

Further to God's identity and his activity in creation.

The view that the Genesis account is impressionistic, and that creation 'really' happened otherwise either holds that God could not have created as the account sets out (or he was unable to communicate the connection between his word and its outcome), and that it must be as the materialists say; that is, despite the information in the account, God had to create something else to bring about the creation: a mediator in 'natural law' at best. A created mediator and a mediator of his will other than Christ!

But it goes further; this view disperses God's sovereignty into his creation, and into the domain of pagan speculation that de-personalises creation, putting us in a 'world' where God is not author proximately, but is distant, vague, and un-known-about.

Who are you, God?

A young woman, trained, it appeared, in the Anglican Youthworks College said, without a hint of irony, that the creation account in Genesis was "a sort of poetic response to the pagan myths of that time".

So...let's get this straight: God's revelation is just a response to what pagans say? I don't think so. God is initiator, not respondent! He leads, is not led. He reveals himself. His mission is not to 'disreveal' paganism.

But think further: this view leaves God's chief credential for our worship and his motive for our salvation in the hands of materialism!

Still, at least she didn't trot out the empty framework hypothesis...but she clearly wasn't given any tips about Hebrew poetry either. Perhaps some time with Kugel would help.

The apologetics of environmental romaticism

In Christianity Explored, the opening video has Rico Tice telling us how wonderful 'nature' is and that its beauty points us to God. I wonder if he was thinking of a tiger pulling its live prey to pieces when he came out with that tosh? The creation certainly is a major pointer to God, its creator, but it has to be thoughtfully and critically done, not by mere romantic ramblings. Along this line, I came across the following in an article "The Costs of the Environmentalism Cult"

The central mistake of the romantic environmentalist is to gloss over the profound differences between human beings and the natural world. We are not “natural” creatures. What makes us human is everything that exists nowhere else in the natural world: the mind, language, consciousness, memory, higher emotions, and culture. None of these exist even in the highest primates. Apes do not craft tools, marry, name their offspring, bury their dead, live by laws or customs, or respect inalienable rights. This radical uniqueness of human identity means that we do not have a “harmonious” relationship with nature, but an adversarial and conflicted one. The natural world is the alien, inhuman realm of blind force, indifferent to suffering, death, and beauty. It is meaningless, for only humans bestow meaning on the world. And that meaning reflects our knowledge that each of us is unique, a creature that appears only once, and that each of us must die.

Most important, unlike everything else in the natural world ruled by necessity, humans are free. As French critic Luc Ferry writes, “Man is free enough to die of freedom.” And from that freedom comes morality, all the things we are obligated to do or not do, particularly in regard to our fellow humans. The nexus of consciousness of our individual uniqueness and necessary death, our freedom to choose to act against nature’s determinism, and our moral obligations to one another is what makes us unnatural––and human. Nature is our home only by dint of our alteration of it to make it suitable for such creatures, and that process is one of conflict and struggle against the brutal forces of extinction and destruction that have characterized the natural world for the 3.6 billion years life has existed.

 Like many modern evangelical activities, CE talks about God the creator, but not in a real and tangible way; from my memory the CE people are of the 'God created, but evolution was his 'mechanism' " school; so they can't connect God tangibly with his creation, and leave the link in story land. Then they are left having to avoid 'natural evil' and not place it in context of a creation that is turned against its creator.

God's "mechanism" ?

One of the hoary old stories of Theistic Evolution, often delivered with a smugness borne of unexamination, is that evolution provides the mechanism for God's creative acts, as though God needs a "mechanism" when his word is power itself!

For a counterpoint, here's how an evolutionist (Daniel Dennet) grabs for a 'mechanism' for his own evolutionary fantasies, explaining how the improbable came about:

And then, one fine day, a mutation happened to arise.

Yep, that's it...that's the 'explanation'!

Shown the door

Comment on Challies latest post on 'accountability'

Quote: "effective accountability [is]…able to function best when it occurs under the leadership..."

The American church seems to be more interested in 'leadership' than almost anything else. I can only guess that this comes from the toxic environment of American pop business writing, because I don't see it in the Scriptures. There's plenty there on ministry, but none on the modern conceptualisation of 'leadership'; which is the one drawn out and somehow superior to the others. It is an anti-community, anti-brotherhood concept which should be shown the door.

Effective accountability (another dubious concept in itself...I much prefer the scriptural characterisation of loving brotherly support) would be about...loving brotherly support; bearing one-another's burderns is not a 'leader' act, it is a community act.

Moltmann on the New Creation

Lifted from Think Theology:

“Whom does John see? He sees the infinite, eternal God coming to the finite beings he has created and to this vulnerable earth. God comes to his transitory creatures on this earth to live among them, and now finally to find rest in his creation as he once did on the sabbath. God will not seek out his dwelling place in special temples or cathedrals. He wants to make his whole creation his home: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool’ (Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:49). The cosmos is his temple; chaos is his enemy. That is why the beauty of the new creation will drive out chaos. Heaven and earth are waiting to become God’s house, for everything created has been made for love. God’s Spirit is in them all and throws them open for God’s future. God finds no rest until everything he has created has returned home to him, like the prodigal son in the parable.” (Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World)

 I pick up on "the cosmos is his temple; chaos is his enemy" Hard to see how the chaos of evolution as hypothesised could be a 'means' of creation, then.

And I like his phrase "everything created has been made for love"; love is basic, as it is inherent between the members of the Godhead.