Couldn't Help Noticing

The Tsunami and the Urge to Explain

As I write, more than a month after the Asian tsunami, there are plenty of lessons to be learned: about human weakness and strength, about our capacity to respond to disaster with both generosity and self-promotion, about the life-saving power of our technology and yet its powerlessness in a world beyond our control.

However, the main lesson I've learned is how eager people are to learn lessons from tragedies. Almost everyone it seems, Christian or non-Christian, wants to draw some conclusion from the dreadful events of the Boxing Day tsunami. For the mainstream media, the lesson that has been drummed into us repeatedly has been that the human spirit is courageously resilient and unfailingly generous in the face of Mother Nature's fury. “Join us at 6:30 to see how Aussies are rolling up their sleeves to help the victims, and doing it with a smile”. For others the lesson has been that tsunami early warning systems are inadequate and need to be improved. Or that the response of our politicians clearly shows their statesman-like qualities/self-serving agendas/insensitivity (cross out those that don't apply).

Lessons about God have also cropped up repeatedly. I've read earnest discussions about whether the events indicate the wrath of God (and equally earnest denunciations of this view), as well as the usual challenge that such catastrophes indicate the non-existence of God, or else that he must either be powerless or malevolent. I've seen commentaries on the fragility of our hold on life, on the fickleness of our supposed generosity (massive for the tsunami victims, almost non-existent for other equally awful tragedies), and on how the survival of some primitive tribes-people who obeyed ancestral wisdom (“when sea sucks back, run for hills”) should teach us that obeying ancient traditional rules (like the Ten Commandments) is a good thing.

(Part 2 tomorrow...)

Ethical contortionists

If it wasn't so tragic, it could almost be amusing watching the legislators and child protection agencies getting into a terrible knot trying to work out how to protect babies, but not paint themselves into a laughable position on the issue of abortion and a woman's ‘right’ to determine what happens to her own body.

In Queensland, for example, new laws have extended the protection afforded to babies, such that a mother who does something (even before giving birth) to put her baby at risk of harm AFTER birth, can face intervention by child protection agencies. See, for example, this story about a woman who wanted a natural birth, considered by doctors to be potentially dangerous to the baby's health.

The ABC reporter in that story asks:

“Well, if we are going to legislate, and [sic] to protect the welfare of the baby, where do we stop? Should we make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke, for instance?”

DAVID MOLLOY (Qld. AMA President): “Well, exactly. I mean, that's the real problem with this, is that when you start to interfere with the rights of the mother, where do you stop, and where do you ascribe the legal rights to the foetus, then you do open an absolute Pandora's Box—can children sue their mothers later on in life for a bad choice about the mode of delivery, or sue them for smoking during a pregnancy? You know, describing [sic—I presume he means “ascribing”] the foetus' rights would of course have profound effects on the abortion debate, which is, you know, very topical at the moment.”

In other words, “let's not go there”! If we are going to defend the notion that a woman has a fundamental right to do whatever she wishes to her body, no matter what the consequential harm to the human life within her, we're going to get some unpalatable consequences—perhaps babies born addicted to drugs or brain damaged. To justify intervention, however, we're going to have to ascribe the right to future good health to a foetus, but deny that same foetus the right to life itself.

Abortion and fathers

Back from holidays, and back to the daily letters-to-the-editor writing habit. This one got into the Australian of February 3:

Dear editor,

I'm delighted that the abortion debate is in the news again. Will the voice of men be heard on this turn around the cycle? No, I don't just mean the politicians and church leaders (though they too have a right to speak). I mean the voice of the fathers. I am offended by how little the debate acknowledges that I may have a role to play in the life of my little ones.

Yours etc.

Fatherhood is here

There's a certain territory that comes with being the Promotions and Advertising Guy. When friends ask me about what might be coming out on the releases schedule, there's a certain amount of skepticism when I sincerely declare that it will be a book that will rock the foundations of the Christian world as we know it. Especially when it's the third time I've said it about three different books.

Nevertheless, Fatherhood is here, back from the printers, and ready for you to order, should you wish to do so.

And I want to convince you that you should. Here's why:

If you're a husband, it's not too early or too late to start thinking about how to be a Christian father and husband and man. Fatherhood will stir you to understand how you can be of greater service to God, in your life and in your family. Read the contents and first chapter on this page, and decide for yourself.

If you're a wife, read the above paragraph, and well, now may be as good a time as any for a present for that lucky husband of yours.

And well, in the end, if Fatherhood does go on to do some foundation-rocking, that'll just be a bonus.

Why God is a woman

In the January 24 issue of TIME Magazine, Deepak Chopra is asked the question, “Why do you believe God is woman?” He responds with “I think God is more likely to be a woman because women are more nurturing and caring and loving ... It's time that we embrace the feminine face of God.”

In the same article, Deepak is asked if it's unnerving to have so many people follow his every word, and he replies, “Be like my children and wife who never take me seriously.”

If that's the feminine face of God, then I'll stick to the (male) God of the Bible, thanks.