The Judge’s decision is final
A recent decision by a Federal magistrate is enlightening (and slightly worrying) in relation to the inherent dangers involved in members of the judiciary interpreting the Christian faith.
The magistrate concerned was hearing an application for judical review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had confirmed a decision by an officer of the Department of Immigration to deny refugee status to a Chinese man, who claimed that he was a Christian and would be persecuted if forced to return to China.
It is hard without knowing the full facts to assess how legitimate the Chinese man's claim was, nor would I deny the need to test the man's claim to be a bona fide Christian. But what I find interesting is the ‘expertise’ of the magistrate.
Firstly he boldly criticizes the Refugee Review Tribunal for its dodgy methodology in assessing whether the man was really a Christian:
The approach taken by the presiding member to test the veracity and depth of the applicant's beliefs was in part questionable. For example, ... she asked the applicant who or what Christians understand God to be. That is an awfully big question to ask. It is apparent from what follows that the presiding member was looking for a description of the Trinity. The presiding member's own understanding of the Trinity, apparently based upon internet material, is itself questionable. The presiding member records her understanding that Christians believe that God was made up of three persons. A more orthodox description of the Trinity would be that God is a single entity with three natures.
Really? That would be a more orthodox description of the Trinity? Clearly this magistrate must know what he's talking about. He hasn't merely looked up material on the internet; he's the full bottle on all this Christian theology stuff.
So how would he define a Christian? I'm glad you asked: “My own view is that a Christian is someone who is capable of reciting the Nicene Creed (which sets out the fundamental articles of faith) and who believes it.”
Hmmm. Could be a problem here for me. I could possibly recite the Apostles' creed if push came to shove, but the Nicene? I may struggle with that one a little.
But our dear magistrate is aware of the problems his definition may cause: “By that test, however, there would probably be very few Christians. A fair proportion of those who assert to be Christians would be excluded.”
Well, um, yes, Mr Magistrate, sir, that could well be the case. My guess is that it could be a very fair proportion indeed. Tell me, does it make you wonder at all whether you might therefore have missed the essence of what it means to be a Christian?