Couldn't Help Noticing

What is the politician’s first duty?

There's been a bit of a hullabaloo in Sydney recently. Our State parliament was debating an issue relating to medical ethics, and the Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, suggested that politicians who claim to be ‘good catholics’ possibly ought to vote on the issue in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic church.

One of the interesting things that emerged in the ensuing media fray was the attitude of some politicians that they would not let their faith influence their vote.

Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed this approach recently. He said,

I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people ... I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go and will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses.

A faith that does not give rise to actions and “does not interfere with decision-making” seems a bit worrying at a personal level (James 2:14ff). I guess Arnie was meaning to separate his decision-making as Governor from his personal decisions. (Is that possible?)

But this raises an interesting question: just what is a politician's obligation? Is it to do what he or she believes is in the best interests of the society being governed? Or is the politician's responsibility to reflect the views of his constituents (even if those views are dangerously misinformed and poorly thought through)?

I'm sure most people would like to think that it is the former, rather than the latter. In fact, I suspect the oath of office for most politicians probably talks about ‘governing for the common good’, or something along those lines.

But if they are meant to decide what is right for the common good, rather than what is popular, surely their faith (Christian, Muslim, atheist or other) is an important and appropriate influence. After all, we are not necessarily well-placed to assess what is likely to be for the common good in the long-term. As Tony Payne has argued,

As a means of working out what to do, pure pragmatism (simply doing what works) is ultimately disastrous, not only because it is unreliable in the short-term (due to the fallen nature of the world and other people and ourselves), but even more significantly because we can’t chart whether it will work long-term or have other side-effects ...

This is why the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Whatever we work out for ourselves must start with a profound humility regarding our position, and a certain pessimism about what we can ultimately achieve. Only God sees the whole, and therefore only God rightly understands what must be done with the particulars. For to truly understand particulars and how they relate to each other, and how they ‘work’, you must not only view the whole in all its variety, but view it in time—you must see where things are headed, what their purpose is. All this is only possible for God, and therefore only possible because of revelation. Revelation must have a key role in telling us what to do, because simply following what seems at the time to ‘work’ (that is, pure pragmatism) in the end may not work at all ...

Perhaps Christians should be writing to their local representatives and urging them to govern by principle and not by pragmatics, and to seek to source their deep principles in the fundamental principle of ‘fearing the Lord’. That sounds not only like wise advice for them, but a good evangelistic opportunity.

Marriage seminar IV

Jim Ramsay asked us to consider at what point our ministry responsibility ended. Can we stop ministering when we close the door of our house at the end of the day? Does our ministry responsibility to our spouses end at the door to the bedroom?

Jim, quoting Broughton Knox, said there was only one person living to whom we had no ministry responsibility, and that was the Lord Jesus.

How does this work out in the context of marriage and sex? Well, in this view, even our sexual relationships are given not simply to gratify ourselves, but to serve the needs of the other person. The success of a sexual relationship (which may not, incidentally, mean the maximization of sexual pleasure in an act of intercourse) can only be found in the context of true other-person-centredness, involving, at its heart, a commitment “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health”. That is the Christian understanding of marriage, and because it is an understanding based on God's creation of marriage (Gen 2:18-25), it is not simply a minority religious view. It is the only workable view for a human being made in God's image.

This understanding accords perfectly with research that shows sexual pleasure is most likely to be experienced in a secure and loving relationship. On the other hand, sex outside of marriage—or the ‘try before you buy’ approach—is not even the beginning of a secure relationship. If the ‘trying’ does not lead to the intended outcome, the natural response of such a philosophy is to withdraw from relationship. As a result, sexual satisfaction will inevitably diminish.

More buttons and banners

Following on from my previous post, we now have more banners and buttons available. Here's the full list:

• Matthias Media Australia
• Matthias Media USA
• The Briefing
• Two ways to live
• Gospel Growth vs. Church Growth conference

Evangelicals under attack

Is it just me, or is evangelical Christianity under greater attack than it has been for many years? I just can't remember any time in the last couple of decades when I have read so many vociferous and vitriolic attacks.

The latest one I've read in The Guardian is an attack on Wycliffe Hall, an evangelical, Anglican theological college in the UK. It has received some unwanted publicity recently after the appointment of a principal who, shock horror, appears to be an Anglican who believes in quite a few of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.

The Guardian article argues (and I use the word ‘argues’ loosely) that Oxford University should sever its links with Wycliffe Hall, and that the Anglican Church should likewise cut the college adrift.

But it is not the fact that the article calls for this action that is surprising; the surprising thing is the absurdly inflammatory language that is used when talking about the evangelicals at Wycliffe Hall. They are described as “religious extremists” (yes, let's just lump them in with Osama bin Laden; that seems fair). Supposedly Wycliffe Hall is home to a “new wave of reactionary evangelicalism” that “has no love in its heart for the values of learning”, and which “does little more than peddle the techniques of Christian salesmanship”. The only evidence provided for this assertion in the article is ... oh, sorry, my mistake; there is no evidence offered. Even a cursory glance at the courses offered at Wycliffe Hall shows that it is a place of serious theological scholarship.

Conservative evangelical views on women's ordination are described in the article as “morally abhorrent”, without any justification provided for that extraordinary view. No doubt the author is relying on that increasingly common argument, ‘such is the view of all right-thinking people’.

And it is asserted that “places such as Wycliffe are turning Anglicanism into a cult”. Now my dictionary (the Macquarie; I won't use the Oxford just in case those evil evangelicals have got in there and fiddled with some of the definitions—we certainly wouldn't put it past them) says that a cult is “a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies”. By that definition, Anglicanism has been a cult for some time, I would have thought. But using the word ‘cult’ is ideal for generating a good dose of irrational fear and loathing.

And finally, the highly inclusive sentiment is expressed by the author that “Anglicanism is fast becoming the nasty party at prayer, with traditionally inclusive theology being submerged by a bargain-basement prejudice that damns to hell all those who disagree”. No doubt the author would damn the evangelicals to hell too ... if he actually believed in hell. Instead, he'll damn them to be ‘cut adrift’ so that they are no longer so troublesome to the nice liberals in the C of E.

And the saddest thing? This attack comes not from an atheistic secularist, like Richard Dawkins, but from the “vicar of Putney”.

Marriage seminar III

At the marriage seminar, Keith Condie helped us to consider how we could strengthen marriage by building emotional attachment with our spouses. He observed how often we can end up speaking to our spouses or our children in a way that is so uncivil and rude, we would shudder to even contemplate using the same language or tone in public, in our workplace, or at church. Should our marriages end up as places where basic common courtesy is suspended? Should we feel free to interrupt the one we are married to because we think we know what they will say? Proverbs says,

If one gives an answer before he hears,
 it is his folly and shame.

(Prov 18:13)

How much more is this so when the one we listen to is the one we've promised to love, honour and cherish!

Once more Keith reminded us that self-control and gentleness were a work of God's Holy Spirit in us.