Couldn't Help Noticing

A rude awakening

I was waking from the fog of sleep to the sound of ABC NewsRadio. Norman Swann was murmuring one of his Health Minutes to me in his rich Scottish brogue.

I became very much awake as I listened to what he was saying:

A study of a million households and 130,000 births in India has found a curious pattern. If a family's first baby was a boy, the chances of a boy or a girl were the same with the next baby. If, however, they had a girl, then the chances of the next baby being a boy were abnormally high and were even higher if the first two babies were female.

This was irrespective of religion, although it was commoner the richer and more educated a woman was.

The explanation was that women were having ultrasounds and aborting female foetuses to the tune of at least half a million a year. And that's despite selective abortion being outlawed by the Indian government, which has a challenge on its hands to stop this appalling practice.

An appalling practice indeed.

But then it struck me: why? Why would a fairly standard ABC-style commentator such as Norman Swann think it appalling that women were “aborting female foetuses”? I would very much doubt that he would be against abortion per se (he works for the ABC after all). Is he the lone pro-life voice of our national broadcaster? Or has he had a change of heart?

A quick Google search revealed the answer. Outrage at ‘female foeticide’ (as it is called) is a standard left-liberal, feminist-friendly position. Norman was not saying anything unusual. Except that he was, when you think about it.

Why should pro-abortionists want to interfere with a woman's right to choose not to have a girl? It's the woman's body, after all. If she wishes to terminate the pregnancy because it will interrupt her career, or make her unhappy, or curtail her earning power, or cause any other sort of inconvenience, her right to do so is vigorously asserted. If, for personal, familial or economic reasons, she feels that a boy would be more helpful in her family than another girl, then surely she has the right to choose. Doesn't she?

And besides, according to the pro-abortion position, it's not a human girl that's being aborted but a ‘female foetus’. It has the potential to become a girl, but it does not yet share the rights or protections that human persons enjoy. Surely there can be no discrimination involved if there is no person involved.

So what's wrong with selective abortion by sex? Why the outrage at the abortion of female foetuses because they're female, when the abortion of female foetuses for other equally appalling reasons (such as “I don't want a baby at the moment”) continues unabated and unlamented?

It's the collision between feminism's demand for free abortion, and feminism's visceral horror at any form of discrimination against the female.

It might be an interesting conversation starter with your pro-abortion friend or colleague: “Tell me, are you against selective abortion on the basis of sex? And if so, why?”

Warning: Anglican bishop-speak alert

For context on this CHN, consider this Reuters report on the recent failed crisis meeting between Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' representative and warring American bishops, some of whom are wanting to dissociate themselves from the recent installation of practising homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

What brave and decisive words might you expect to emerge from such a top-level meeting of denominational hierarchy? Think about the porridgey language used to describe why America is still stuck in Iraq, add God lingo, and you're getting close. Here's a part of their statement: “[The] level of openness and charity in this conference allow us to pledge to hold one another in prayer and to work together until we have reached the solution God holds out for us”.

Apart from noticing that some clergy don't believe in commas, here is a rough translation: “Talks are completely deadlocked. Nothing happened. The Archbishop has nice teaspoons.”

This means that the liberal bishops are one step closer to their aim, which is to ensure no-one does anything. Doing nothing means accepting that we can live with practising homosexuals as Anglican bishops. “Mission accomplished”, they might say, if they wanted to be understood (they don't).

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?

How to Make Wise Choices by Brian Houston

This book, along with a number of others, including How to Live a Blessed Life, is part of Brian Houston's “The Maximised Life” series (AUD $12.95 each, which make them a little expensive, given their size). The books are well-presented, featuring attractive typefaces and photographs.

As in How to Live a Blessed Life (and indeed much of the material coming from Hillsong), in How to Make Wise Choices themes of judgement and sin are downplayed. Mention is made of Jesus but it is scant, although he is acknowledged as a good example of wisdom. Again, material wealth features prominently as part of the benefit of making wise choices. Pointing to Solomon and Abraham to back up his case, Brian tells us that “The pursuit of money or fame won't build your life, but they are counted among the rewards of God's wisdom because they have purpose” (p. 41).

That purpose, according to Brian, is to bless others. Brian insists that wisdom outlasts money: “Some 400 years before Christ, the Ancient Greek playwright Sophocles wrote, ‘Wisdom outweighs any wealth’” (p.43). However, in the next sentence this statement is immediately followed by the careful qualification, “Much has been said about wisdom and wealth, but the two often go hand in hand”. It's an important qualification as much of his book deals with how wisdom will make you wealthy in a material—as well as a spiritual—sense.

Given that Brian covers a great range of Bible verses dealing with wisdom, it is an unfortunate oversight that he fails to mention a passage in 1 Corinthians that speaks of the true nature of the greatest wisdom:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:21-24)

The consequences of this oversight are not small. Neither this book, nor How to Live a Blessed Life make any mention of the greatest wisdom and blessing of all: Jesus' death on the cross as a ransom for the sins of the whole world. Scripture is used out of context, it is misinterpreted and misapplied. “The Maximised Life” series may be attractive little booklets with nice covers but they are dangerous and misleading.

As a bonus for CHN readers who have read this far, here is a verse from 2 Corinthians:

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (2 Cor 8:9)

Is it worth noting that Paul is talking about the wealth of the Kingdom of Heaven rather than the wealth of this world.

How to Live a Blessed Life by Brian Houston

This 54-page book has a great cover. Even better, the subtitle promises to give us “Principles from the life of the righteous man in Psalm 112”.

In keeping with Brian's reasonably well-publicized views on prosperity, we find Psalm 112:3 quoted on page 14: “Wealth and riches will be in his house”. Brian is very clear on what this means: it is about physical prosperity. This guarantee must not be spiritualized away. Prosperity is the promise God gives us. Says Brian, “I cannot find any scripture that states it is God's will for us to be poor and destitute”.

This statement is qualified, however, with the careful note that we are not just talking about money: “Money cannot buy family, great relationships, a good reputation, or physical well-being. Don't under-estimate or exclude these from your definition of prosperity.” (p. 15)

Although the book is based on Psalm 112, there are many quotes from other parts of the Bible. It's not only about Psalm 112, but about the blessings promised in the whole of Scripture. Given this—and it's especially surprising for a book that's all about blessing—it's disappointing to see how little mention we find of the source of all blessing, the Lord Jesus. You will be blessed if you “give your life” to him (p. 13); he is “gracious and full of compassion” (p. 21); he is God's representative, the “light of the world” (p. 19); but he is elsewhere mentioned only in passing.

There are some other fairly major omissions. In Brian's view, Psalm 112 doesn't seem to be about Jesus (and see Luke 24:44 for why this is a problem). One key blessing—repentance leading to forgiveness of sins—isn't mentioned anywhere. Despite the sustained contrast the Psalm makes between the righteous man (who endures) and the wicked man (who “gnashes his teeth and melts away”), Brian makes no mention of the fearful judgement of God that underpins this contrast.

This book misses the meaning and purpose of the Psalm and replaces it with an application about material wealth completely ripped out of its Old Testament context. However, inside the back cover, there is the very useful information that Brian Houston's book, You Need More Money, is currently out of print.

Here, by way of contrast, is Luke 6:20-26, presented as a bonus to CHN readers who have read up to this point:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.