or am i not supposed to put words in stars?? i like it anyway!

I think the three categories we have been talking about are helpful. And probably the easiest way to think about our ethics. But I’m not going to say that they are the only 3 categories (even if I can’t think of a fourth at the moment).

I’d say it’s more on the basis of natural revelation (ie it matches my observation of the world) rather than special (ie it is specifically defined in the Bible (for those unfamiliar with the terms)) that I see the definitions being created (except for work and rest which I reckon come from Genesis 1–3). Though, possibly Ecclesiastes? And a bit of Proverbs…

Work = Activities for bringing order.
Rest = Activities for rejuvenation.
Play = Activities for pleasure.

I still think the best actions tick two or more of those boxes at once — but all actions should tick at least one, and you should be aiming for a balance.

That’s also what I was going for with the Venn diagrams (or my definitions underpinning the diagrams).

If you’re interested, it’s Building 1, room E319.

I won’t be there if, if that provides further encouragment. :)

I was very excited to see King Diamond (Mercyful Fate) and Rob Halford (Judas Priest) on her list. Two of my all-time favourites.

No one can do what these two guys did. Listen to those links and have your face melted!

I think they tend to be used to emphasise the bits you think are important from other people’s writing rather than from your own. Or to indicate a sort of tangentially related trail that a clause might explore. Or something.

I don’t think it’s possible to exhaust emphatic words. I think you just need to choose better nouns and verbs. As a general rule.

So instead of writing “I hammered with force a huge nail into a large piece of wood!” you could say “I bashed a spike into a slab of oak.”

Bashed is more emphatic than “hammered with force” and spike is better than “huge nail.”

Emphasis should generally be a case of saying more with less. Maybe using a shorter sentence should be on my list.

So, I favour changes that are intuitive to changes that require you to provide additional interpretive guides (in the forms of underlines, underscores or punctuation).

And I think sometimes all caps just works. Especially if it’s a case where you would actually be shouting. But I agree, it’s messy, and should almost never be used. Anything past using the occasional adverb/adjective should almost never be used.

Anything that looks like it could be written in a teenage girl’s diary should never be used.

I think I’ve ruined all emphasis words. I overuse them, so they’ve lost their meaning. Which makes stars good.

I reckon #3 from your list needs to move way, way, down.

I would say that play can also be bringing order to creation for the primary purpose of pleasure.

That would be my distinction.

I like the way that Donna is going on this. play is enjoy­ing God’s cre­ation as it is — not try­ing to change it. Delight­ing in what is.

That’s where my thinking is going too.

I just sent you a submission.

An equally brief response (which I must say is a slight relief).

I’m not just suggesting we cede the word (that would be a relatively empty and transparent move) — but the word and all the status that includes legally — short of the benefits that the government provides to specifically incentivise raising children in the best possible situation — namely, a legally recognised heterosexual union entered into with the intention of a lifelong partnership for the raising of children and mutual support of one another.

Basically I’m saying let gay people call their unions “marriages,” let them enjoy the same financial benefits from their relationship with one another that other partnerships enjoy, and draw a line at parenting on the basis that its demonstrably less than optimum for children to be raised in that context, and that it’s abhorrent to use children as a political football in order to justify your own decisions.

We need to separate the marriage debate from the parenting of a child debate. Some may see that as impossible, but I think they’re different issues because you can make a scientific and sociological case for one distinction, but not necessarily the other. Which means you can make a political case for one, and not the other.

Two thoughts about the ‘give-up-the-word-but-still-protect-the-reality-approach’

i) I think those that want to broaden the definition of marriage won’t be happy. I don’t think they are after the ‘word’ per se, but after indistinguishable treatment. In other words we will be left in exactly the same position of asking whether or not the government should be in the business of recognizing and defining ‘the-institution-formerly-known-as-marriage’

ii) And here I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it. I don’t think you can say that you are against the government defining and protecting marriage when it’s called marriage, but OK for defining and defending it when it’s called something else.

More to say, but unlike Mark (hi Mark) I just can’t write that quickly.

Tim

Ok. Here goes.

I think Wilberforce is the prime example of the approach to politics I advocated in my other post — if you’re a Christian who wants to have an impact on politics then join the system. Be part of the system. Work for change. Argue for change. Realise that change is going to be a slow and frustrating process.

Contra Family First, Wilberforce didn’t seek government on a Christian platform (that would have been difficult, since he became a Christian after he entered parliament). And when in government he supported cases on their merits.

I would say that the approach he took to slavery was “libertarian” in the classic sense of the word because he was arguing that slaves, as humans, should have the same rights to liberty that the rest of us enjoy.

I would say his approach to abolition is consistent to “acting as though the Bible might be wrong” in that he didn’t just argue that the Christians in parliament had to oppose slavery on Christian grounds, but rather he used his Christian convictions about the sanctity of life, and his concerns for the humanity of the slaves, to drive his criticisms of the industry on humanitarian grounds. He thoroughly researched slavery before supporting the abolition movement, he encouraged studies of the slave trade and the conditions slaves were kept in, he won over other members of parliament through personal relationships, the passion of his convictions and the strength of his arguments (have you ever seen Steve Fielding do anything like that?). Using the conditions on slave ships, and the broader treatment of slaves to argue that slavery went against natural justice and morality. He made a natural law case for what was a theological conviction. I think that’s the approach we need to take in our interactions with a secular government who govern a state of secular thinkers. Even if we’re 100% sure of our faith (and for me personally, at times, my conviction is much lower than 100%) we need to remember that others don’t share it at all. We’re talking about putting forward our views, taken on faith, over and above the views of others — who don’t share our faith. I can’t see how that can possibly have positive outcomes for the gospel, or how it fits in a democratic system.

He also fought the fight pragmatically — looking for loopholes wherever available to make the slave trade difficult rather than just arguing for abolition. This strikes me as being uncompromising (in a good way) but being so within the confines of government — so his moves to ban British subjects from aiding the slave trade to French colonies, which in the Biopic Amazing Grace was basically a ploy to prevent ships sailing under different flags…

Basically I would suggest that Wilberforce (and Bonhoeffer) fought for their convictions about human life with whatever means possible. I would say, somewhat tongue in cheek, that rather than being libertarians they were gospel utilitarians.

So, he doesn’t fit in the Family First hall of shame because he didn’t run on an “I’m a Christian, elect me to govern for Christians” platform, he didn’t answer questions about morality with “I think this is the best course of action solely because the Bible says it’s the best course of action” and he wasn’t a right wing fundamentalist. He even sided with the other side of the floor when he thought they had good ideas, and he was responsible for such proposals as being nice to animals and he was so vexed by the question as to how his new faith should determine his politics that he almost left office, rather than wanting to stay in.

Wikipedia, citing a couple of biographies, describes his approach to politics, post conversion, as:

“Thereafter, his political views were informed by his faith and by his desire to promote Christianity and Christian ethics in private and public life. His views were often deeply conservative, opposed to radical changes in a God-given political and social order, and focused on issues such as the observance of the Sabbath and the eradication of immorality through education and reform”

I’m sure we’ll both read this paragraph in support of our own arguments — I’ll agree that Wilberforce sought to legislate for Christian morality if you agree that he did it wanting to see Christianity spread and by building a case using evidence and natural law rather than just saying “the Bible says”… Despite appearances in this discussion I am actually fairly politically conservative. But I think liberty trumps morality when it comes to defining law. Simply because I am sure that the boot of politics will one day be on the non-Christian foot, and I think we need to be trying to ensure the kick it gives us isn’t the kind of kick that sends the gospel underground (though I have no doubt the gospel would flourish in that situation).

Another interesting paragraph from the Wikipedia article (I thought using Wikipedia’s biography might be more balanced than using Amazing Grace (both in book and movie form)…

“Wilberforce’s involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life. He and other Evangelicals were horrified by what they perceived was a depraved and unchristian trade, and the greed and avarice of the owners and traders. Wilberforce sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]”. The conspicuous involvement of Evangelicals in the highly popular anti-slavery movement served to improve the status of a group otherwise associated with the less popular campaigns against vice and immorality.”

I added the emphasis. For me, I’m not going to spend energy fighting for personal morality to be legislated (since I think real change in morality is driven by a change in heart and mind), I’d rather Christians approached the political realm making positive changes to the world on behalf of the poor and the unrepresented so that Romans 13 style, we’ll be recognised for the good we do. That’s a much better witness.

I see a distinction between always being prepared to suggest that gay “marriages” are wrong, and counselling against them (which I am), and saying “you’re not allowed to have one because the God you don’t believe in says you can’t”… And I see a distinction in roles for church and state. I think being a Christian politician is more complex than just trying to vote the way you think God would want you to vote — I think it also involves voting in a way that will help people meet God, and voting in a way that serves the long term goal of gospel proclamation, not the bandaid solution of making sin illegal. Prohibition is a shining example of the way legislating against a particular view of morality doesn’t actually stop the problem, but rather sends it underground.

“The media is a player in this game and so they have to be read with a grain of salt – they tend to give an impression that it’s inevitable because they think it is, it’s ‘progress’.”

I think, from a democratic point of view, that it probably is progress, as would be defined by the secular press. I think it’s even progress as Romans 1 describes the progress of people’s thinking being overtaken by sin until they can’t tell the difference.

I just think our response shouldn’t be the Rowan Williams response. It should be the gospel response. It should go something like this…

The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. It’s black and white. Those pursuing homosexual relationships are doing so at their eternal peril. The Bible warns against this course. The Bible is the word of God. Homosexuality is no worse than other sins, like adultery, or lying, or stealing. And homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. All sin is a genetic predisposition. And all people struggle with sin. We, the church, will continue to argue that homosexuality is a life choice that is not pleasing to God — and making that life choice is a clear sign that you are not repenting of all sin, and are that you are living a life that is not pleasing to God. This, however, is your choice. And we will not oppose your right to call your relationships “marriage,” provided we, the church, can continue to define marriage as God does. As between one man, and one woman. We recognise that our views on this matter are governed by a faith not shared by all, and understanding that there are many views on this matter operating in our society we simply wish to be afforded the freedom to hold our views which are grounded in two thousand years of tradition. For us, as followers of the God who reveals himself through the Bible, there are two choices for those born with homosexual tendencies — they can embrace their sinful flesh or they can live by the Spirit choosing to submit their lives, and their flesh, to the Lordship of Jesus. The Bible says you can’t have both, we the church say you can’t have both. Our democracy, founded as it is, on the view that all people are created equal, protects our right to express the idea that homosexuality is a sinful practice, just as it protects the rights of gay people to seek to determine their own lives. Our wish, for these gay people, whom we love as our neighbours, not as our enemies, is that they come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and submit their lives to him, and find their identities in him rather than their sexual orientation. The Bible speaks of minds being renewed by that decision.

That’s what I think we should be fighting for. I don’t think it’s having the cake and eating it too — I think it’s recognising the function of democratic government which isn’t “majority rules” but everybody has an equal vote, and equal rights (you could argue that gay people currently enjoy the same rights as straight people (and I have) in that they too can currently marry somebody of the opposite gender — if I was running the PR campaign for the anti-gay marriage lobby that would be my line). I’d be fine with Christian lobby groups pushing this line, alongside research like the stuff cited regarding the best approach to parenting being stable heterosexual relationships involving the biological parents of the child wherever possible. But I haven’t found any that do. There are no moderate Christian lobby groups. And when our so called Christian voice speaks and says, on the record, that gay marriage is child abuse (which a Family First candidate did, and she was backed by the party) and that Australia is a Christian nation and should be governed by Christian principles a little bit of me dies inside. We can’t legislate the Holy Spirit and its effects. We can seek to be a positive influence on society. But if we’re convinced that our approach is the best, because it is the approach ordained by God, we should be able to back that up with evidence.

“I think people have more chance of having some thing at the end if they fight for what they really want and then get bid down to some thing.”

I have more faith in the process of putting forward arguments with integrity and sympathy for the views of the other side as the first move. I think the combative approach to “negotiation” is in the process of being seen to have had its day.

Re: 6. I agree pretty much with your approach. I wouldn’t see two gay people as “parents” of a child, I would see them as having taken on the role of “parents,” or perhaps being “parent-like” and my understanding and treatment of the issue would be more in line with seeing it as “a household” than “a family” providing love and care for a child. I think the concept of family involves genetics. Though I think people can be “adopted in” to such families. I think while the household may self-identify as a family that identity will need to change as a result of the gospel.

“On your view God is causing real harm to the children by requiring the family to be split”

Only if the killing off of your fleshly/sinful identity is ever definable as “causing real harm” — I would say it causes pain but not harm. I don’t see the two as synonyms.

I am a great admirer of much of what Calvin did in the political sphere — but I think he an Wilberforce, and he and Bonhoeffer, had different approaches. It would be an oversimplification to simply caricature the approaches they took as running the state, working within the state, and working against the state — but if I was going with such a simplification I would suggest that my preferred approach is a mixture of all three — and is governed by what (I think) is best for the spread of the gospel. We’re talking “my approach” here — I’m not suggesting this should be everybody’s approach.

Sure, Calvin’s approach was ok for a city of Christians. But. I don’t think that was a “Christian approach to government” because I don’t think we should biblically be expecting entire cities to be Christians. I don’t think we see a precedent of that anywhere in the Bible — even Jerusalem is home to outsiders.

I think his approach was a little naive because it meant he could do nothing else to Servetus. I’ve written a little bit about Calvin and politics, twice in fact, and Calvin and Servetus before. There have been a lot of good things to come out of Calvin’s political reforms — I’d be the first to cede that, but I think when it came to governing for both Christians and non-Christians, and even for Christians and theologians he didn’t agree with, that Calvin’s approach has been significantly improved on and developed since.

“It hap pens all the time, but it’s not good his tory to take some one on the lib eral end of his soci ety in his era, jus ti fi ably fail him by con tem po rary moral judge ments and then speak about him as though he was a nut ter even by the stan dards of his day. Get him on other things if you want to make that point. But not Serve tus. Not Christendom’s finest hour, but it doesn’t do what you want here with regards Calvin.”

Agreed. But I think Calvin’s approach also failed by biblical standards at that point. A whole lot more “he who is without sin should cast the first stone” might have helped (though I’m not, in principle, against governments employing the death penalty). Basically I think that sort of standard probably created an incredible increase in nominalism, and probably (I wasn’t there, so I don’t know for sure) inhibited the work of evangelism because everybody said they were Christians.

“all signs that this has nothing to do with an over-realised eschatology.“

I would argue that any assumption that a whole city would be filled with Christians and should be governed as such is guilty of such an eschatology. I’d argue that America is still suffering from the same identity crisis borne from the same assumptions. The really extreme versions of this eschatological framework — zionism, American messianism (equating the President with the messiah, and/or the state with the Kingdom of God), and Mormonism — are based on similar attempts to have the new created order be normative for the current created order. I think the order of the new creation is the ideal — but I think we need to approach ethical and political questions grounded in this world and informed by where things ought to be.

I’d say that the anabaptists are the other side of the same coin. It’s like people who choose to send their kids to a Christian run school v people who want to home school their kids. Both make the decision from the same motivation, but take different approaches.

Indeed, which is why just four days ago I urged Christians of all stripes to join the party they share their political ideology with and try to make a difference on policies. I think being part of the process of debate, rather than being a special interest group, is the future of Christian interaction with politics. I’ll get to that when I get to Wilberforce.

2. b) Your definition of democracy sounds a lot like “majority rules” rather than “everybody has an equal voice”… I think our approach to democracy should be couched in the latter, not the former. If it’s a case of majority rules then the gay marriage debate, according to opinion polls, is already over. I think what we need to be doing as Christians engaging in the process is clarifying what we want in the case that the law gets changed. The thing I’d add to your list of “isn’t this greats” is “isn’t it great that this country allows minority voices to clearly speak their minds, and isn’t it great that Christians are free to make the case for the gospel while clearly being different from the surrounding nations”…

Actually, that might be something I haven’t touched on yet…

Part of my approach to the issue, grounded in my “gospel utilitarianism” is that I think the gospel is at its best when the contrast is starkest. So I kind of want the government to legislate against Christian morals so that our salt is saltier and our light brighter.

2 c)

“The ruler is there to do you good, not just pro vide the struc ture for lib erty. And he is to pun ish the wrong doer, not just the per son who doesn’t play by the rules. Domin ion in the world that God has made is a moral activ ity. We can’t cut that Gor dion knot by try ing to restrict gov ern ment from stay ing out of moral questions.”

I think the ruler is there to commend us for doing good, and to tacitly allow it — I don’t think allowing the doing of good has anything to do with what’s codified. There’s an example from Rome which I’m sure you’re aware of, but others can google, where a Roman emperor, hostile to Christianity, acknowledged that the church wasn’t just caring for their own sick “but for ours as well” — here was a hostile government recognising the church’s good deeds.

I’m not suggesting that the church abdicate morality. I’m suggesting that the church take a different approach to morality. I think morality by legislation is the wrong way.

3.

“This makes me grumpy, Nathan. And that makes dia logue harder between us. That sen tence was part of big ger argu ment I made and you responded to the whole thing with a one-liner that gives me noth ing to work with to take the argu ment fur ther.”

I ran out of time, and thought I had bigger fish to fry. But my point is, so far as the political scene is concerned, we’ve given up the ghost on divorce. We haven’t campaigned for any significant reforms to deal with the problem — and the problem of divorce is as big in the church as it is in the state.

It’s what the State looks to pro vide it with prop erly formed cit i zens – which means that there is some thing after all in all that ultra-conservative fear of schools indoc tri nat ing stu dents. School ing isn’t really about teach ing skills and knowl edge at all. It’s about cit i­zen ship for ma tion for a sec u lar democ racy. Hence the bat tle for what goes into the cur ricu lum — more’s at stake there than just a child’s education.

I don’t doubt that schools are trying to indoctrinate their pupils as roving advocates of a secular democracy with a framework of scientific naturalism. I would even go so far as to posit a conspiracy theory that the only reason RE is still allowed in schools is that there’s an assumption it will be taught badly and thus turn people off religion. I share the ultra-conservative fear. I just don’t think keeping my child from engaging with the ideas and guiding them in that process is a better idea than letting them turn into an adult, having them discover those views, and not having the same influence a parent has over a younger mind.

But then my ques tion will be – if that’s the case why isn’t the basic struc ture of school ing chang ing rad i cally as our grasp of child devel op ment is rewrit ing the text books at the moment?

I think you’ll find that while the external appearances are the same, much of what goes on in the classroom is the product of constant evolution.

“The state has a mas sive inter est in the well be ing of the fam ily unit because it forms the basic build ing block for soci ety. I would argue that this is a suf fi cient basis for legally defin ing mar riage, since mar riage (and “after the fact” mar riage) is the basis for the family.”

I agree with the first statement, and I agree with the idea that stable heterosexual relationships are the basis for family. Which is actually what I’ve advocated in the post. That the state has a role to play in incentivising heterosexual relationships with economic benefits.