Engage Mail 09-07 (July 2009)

Welcome to engage.mail for July 2009. This monthly offering is a sample of EA’s work to share resources and insight across the Australian Evangelical community through printed and web resources and events and seminars. As well as on our web site, engage.mail is also available as a pdf here. If you would like to submit an article on reflective, culturally engaged Christianity, please email me at ian@ea.org.au. We hope you will join with us—share, support, contribute! (Did you receive the last issue? It's here as a pdf.)

Ian Packer
Director of Public Theology 

 

Contents

Biblical Illiteracy - Cheryl Catford

A Sword, A Compass and a Table - Rick Lewis

A Threat to Freedom of Religion and Conscience in Victoria? - Denise Cooper-Clarke

Letter to National Human Rights Consultation - Ian Packer

Writing Novels for the Kingdom - Nathan Hobby

Book Review - People of Compassion by Dave Andrews - Cheryl Catford

Biblical Illiteracy

If evangelicals are defined as those who “passionately believe the central claims of the Bible” why are we not that interested in reading that same Bible? Bible illiteracy among the general Christian population has reached alarming levels and evangelicals are not far behind. George Barna’s research amongst American churches in 2000 revealed that among adult and teen believers the most widely known bible verse was “God helps those who help themselves” (yep, you’re right, it’s not in there). For some Australian Christians the only encounter they have with the bible is when a small portion appears on the screen during the weekly service – there is no need to actually touch a bible at all.

During my experience of over fifteen years teaching first-year bible students I noted a gradual decline in the bible knowledge those students initially possessed. Although the majority of students had a Christian upbringing, attended Sunday School and even a Christian School, very few knew a basic chronology of biblical history or could correctly identify major biblical characters. Some struggled when I required them to write down the bible books in order and correct spelling (Galations is a favourite). When I spoke of the story of Abraham, or Ruth or Paul it was obvious not a few students were unfamiliar with them. The consequent impact of bible illiteracy upon theology is immense. Barna found that only 43% of bible-believing Baptists in America believed Satan was real and 55% affirmed Christ was sinless. My students also held some fairly strange theological ideas. Ah, the stories we could share…

To what can we attribute this decline in bible literacy? Here are some brief suggestions.

• The demise of Sunday School. Sure, we all squirmed through a format that seemed too much like school, but memory verses, bible stories, and gold stars instilled in generations a basic acquaintance with Scripture. Today, children’s programs are much more entertaining but, unfortunately, the bible does not always feature prominently.

• The atomisation of the bible. The bible has been reduced from a collection of books to a collection of thousands of bits of text. Daily devotionals tackle one verse per day, sermons present one passage and we are encouraged to read a chapter a day. All these practices are sound if we are able to fit the pieces back into the big picture - the meta-narrative that the bible reveals. But so few have been taught or grasped the whole story so the bible becomes a confusing jumble of unrelated stories or bits of information.

• The desire for instant individual gratification. Often the Bible is treated as the source of instant answers to whatever problem or question the reader has. We resort to lucky dip (open bible at random and let finger land on verse) or command search (just do everything it says, difficult when reading Leviticus) or promise box (select a promise for today) with scant regard to issues of original audience, context or literary sense.

• The fear of not being relevant. We are all rightly concerned that the bible message connects with the culture; that we engage missionally with our neighbours. However, this concern has resulted in the proliferation of sermons that have little bible content and seem more like motivational messages. Conversely, the delivery of an exegetically-sound sermon that has no relevance to the hearer’s daily existence is at best boring and at worst alienating.

• The emphasis on experience. Somewhere in the 1980s, as the experience of the dynamic of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers became more widespread, emphasis shifted from having ‘right doctrine’ to ‘experiencing God’. The preacher and teacher took a back seat to the worship leader as the oft-neglected emotional aspect of Christianity began to dominate. The old fallacious dichotomy between ‘Word” and “Spirit” seemed to force a choice rather than a marriage of the two in the lives of mature believers.

And the solutions? That is for another article but suffice to say all Christian leaders need to take the situation seriously. I, for one, want to pass the baton to a next generation who are biblically literate (without being bibliolatrous), contextually sensitive (without selling out) and spiritually alive (without being excessive).

Maybe, we need to begin each conversation with “Read anything good lately?” and hope the answer includes the Bible.

Cheryl Catford is EA’s National Director and continues to lecture at Tabor College Victoria where she was lecturer from 1991 and Principal from 2003 to 2006.

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) of the Parliament of Victoria is conducting an inquiry into the exceptions and exemptions provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (EOA). The Committee is to report to the Parliament as to whether these provision should be changed.

The EOA provides that direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful if it is based on certain attributes, including age, religious belief or activity, sex, race, sexual orientation, political belief, impairment and marital status. However Parts 3 and 4 of the Act provide for exceptions and exemptions to permit discrimination on certain grounds for, among other groups, religious institutions and religious organisations.

The Committee released an Options Paper in May and then invited public submissions to be made (by July 10, 2009). Many people of religious faith, including Christians, have serious concerns about the proposals in the Options Paper, believing they will significantly curtail religious freedom and negatively impact the operations of religious organisations in a number of fields, such as health, education, aged care, welfare and aid and development.

Argument of the Options Paper

The Options Paper claims that there is widespread community support for reducing the scope of the exemptions, thus redressing the current “imbalance” where religious freedom is perceived to take precedence over equality considerations. It views this change as essential to achieving the goal of equality in society. It accepts that exemptions may be acceptable in relation to “core” religious activities, so would not seek, for example, to require all churches to ordain women, but argues that exemptions should be limited if not abolished, in relation to “peripheral” religious functions, for example aged care and education.

Critique of the assumptions of the Options Paper

1)    Equality need not mean identical treatment: discrimination is not always bad

As Christians we affirm that all humans as created in the image of God are equal in worth and dignity and should be treated with the same respect, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual practice or any other factor. However, we do not regard all beliefs as equally true, nor all ways of life as equally godly, and when employing people it is appropriate that religious organisations should be able to discriminate in favour of those whose beliefs and lifestyle is in accordance with that of the organisation.

2)    A flawed understanding of what it means to be a secular society

Australia is a pluralist society in that it is made up of people with a variety of religious faiths (the majority) as well as agnostics and atheists. It is also a secular society in that no one religious (or anti-religious) view is privileged in legislation and public policy. But there is a difference between a secular society and a secularist society, one based on the ideology of secularism, which allows no place for religious voices in the 'public square', and no place for distinctive religious ways of carrying out public functions such as health and education. Such a secularist society is not genuinely secular, because an irreligious ideology is privileged in legislation and public policy. The Options Paper seems to based on the desire for a secularist rather than a secular society. Given the predominance of Australians with a religious affiliation (majority Christian) this is also undemocratic. Secularism is but one particular ideology in our pluralist society, and a minority one at that, though more prevalent among certain “elites”, including the media.

3)    The unacceptable distinction between “core” and “peripheral” functions

The Options Paper takes “core” functions to mean things like worship and the teaching of doctrine. But it questions whether business activities should enjoy the same exemptions from the requirements of the EOA. It seems that the fundamental right to freedom of religion only applies to “core” activities, not “peripheral” (or “extended”) activities. But can the religious life be so divided? Such a distinction is false and unworkable. Consider the Salvation Army – could its community involvement be distinguished from its “core”? Most religions, and certainly Christianity, have implications for the way we live in the world, including obligations to our neighbours and to society as a whole. Worship involves our whole lives, not just “churchy” activities on a Sunday. The Christian faith strongly resists the demand of secularism that religion be restricted to the private domain. In addition to evangelism our public engagement has traditionally included, and continues to involve help to the needy, education and care of the sick, aged and disabled. These activities are conducted both by individuals and not for profit organisations under the auspices of churches.

In Australia, what the Options paper calls “core activities” make up only a small proportion of activities under religious governance. The dollar value to the Australian economy of the religious contribution in health, welfare and education , and the numbers of people employed by them, dwarf the contribution made through the so-called “core” activities (around $15 billion of industry value added compared to $1.3 billion, and approximately 150,000 permanent and 7,500 casual employees compared to 33,521 permanent employees and 7,828 casuals, in 2007).

Effects of secularising religious service delivery

If religious organisations were to be compulsorily secularised by denying them the freedom to discriminate in employing workers on the basis of religious convictions, in relation to, say, religious belief and lifestyle, experience suggests that in some cases organisations will withdraw from service provision, and in other cases, where they do continue on a secularised basis, there will be a significant loss of volunteers, on whom such organisations depend heavily.  The State currently relies heavily on religious agencies, particularly in the provision of health, welfare and education. The changes proposed in the Options Paper would likely have profound social and economic effects in these areas.

So far, the proposed changes have received little media attention. But Christians should pay close attention to developments, and be ready to engage in the debate when final recommendations are brought to Parliament for a decision.

Denise Cooper-Clarke is Researcher for EA Public Theology 3 days per week. She is a graduate of medicine and theology with a Ph. D in medical ethics (end of life decision making). She has a special interest in professional ethics and the ethics of virtue. She is an adjunct Lecturer in Ethics at Ridley Melbourne, and a tutor in medical ethics at the University of Melbourne. Denise and her husband David have three adult children and one grandson. Denise is based at St Hilary's Anglican Church in Kew, Melbourne.

A Sword, a Compass and a Table

Letter to National Human Rights Consultation

National Human Rights Consultation Submission

AGWW-7T29DL

Ian Packer,
Director of Public Theology
Australian Evangelical Alliance, Inc.

1. Introduction to the Australian Evangelical Alliance

The Australian Evangelical Alliance (EA) is a fellowship of churches, organisations and individuals. We are affiliated with the World Evangelical Alliance, an international fellowship representing more than 420 million Christians in 127 countries. Such a network puts us in touch with Evangelical Christians in both the so-called developed and developing worlds, and with believers who are persecuted minorities. EA participates in the Religious Liberty Commission of this worldwide fellowship.

The vision of the EA is to help resource followers of Jesus Christ in Australia to be a visible sign of the Kingdom of God—that Jesus of Nazareth announced—in their unity, love, life and priorities, faithfully declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in works of justice and mercy. EA seeks to be a catalyst for Christian unity, cooperation and mission. Our mission is to serve the Christian community by:

• linking people and networks in strategic partnerships
• providing services to optimise the use of resources encouraging and supporting innovative ministries
• encouraging and supporting innovative ministries
• stimulating and communicating biblical thinking in church and society about contemporary issues
• giving voice to Christian concerns

It is in relation to these latter two tasks that we take much interest in the prospects for the National Human Rights Consultation’s framing and discussion of questions of a Charter of Rights in Australia.

2. The Need for More Discussion of ‘Human Rights’

The ‘National Human Rights Consultation’ (henceforth ‘NHRC’), despite current controversies over feared agendas, should be welcomed as a contribution to ethical and political discussion among free citizens in Australia. Despite the freedoms enjoyed by Australians, over the past decade questions of the violation, degradation or neglect of human rights or their ‘suspension’ due to security ‘expediencies’ have arisen. For example, the protracted detainment of asylum seekers, the Dr Haneef fiasco, and the ongoing plight of so many indigenous Australians have all been seen to damage Australia’s reputation as an advocate and protector of human rights.

In view of such controversies and the worthy desire to reverse such actions and repair international reputation, it is understandable, perhaps even laudable, that there has been renewed enquiry into our lawmaking and processes to see whether there are straightforward means available to us to prevent such abuses and energise the nation to tackle the problems of neglect of human beings. It is proposed that either a Bill or Charter of Rights could be one vital plank in a raft of measures to combat social ills such as poverty, social exclusion or marginalisation, and mistreatment of our fellow human beings.

It is unlikely that a constitutional Bill will pass through a referendum of the Australian people, despite the majority’s endorsement of the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Objections to a constitutional Bill or a statutory Charter are not about moral aspirations for the nation to be a more free and equitable society. Objections tend to circle instead around concerns over the nature of the legal apparatus that might surround the introduction of a Charter at the National level and over questions about changes in the distribution of power between elected representatives and the judiciary. As yet, it is not clear to ‘laypeople’ how these will all be worked out. It is with some interest that Victorian experiments in legislation are being monitored and in view of recent legislations which curtail many doctors’ substantive moral viewpoints and violate conscience in the name of a liberal ideology of ‘freedom’, there are reasons to be concerned, more so if these were at a national level.

Whether or not the NHRC can make a useful contribution to public understanding of the implications of a Charter of Rights will depend to a large extent on how some of these issues are framed. There are both encouraging and worrying signs about how this will proceed. 

3.  Questions about the Shortcomings of ‘Rights’ Language

The language of rights has become the predominant lingua franca of moral discourse in Western democratic regimes. Rights language is powerful language, indeed it is something of a ‘fighting creed’. At its best, it calls for a recognition that access to vital goods is being denied or hindered by agents or agencies that have no moral or political legitimacy to do so. There is strength in rights language.

Perhaps for this reason in particular, it has become customary and even instinctive for persons to state their moral viewpoints or make their claims in terms of rights. This is most unfortunate for a variety of reasons. Rights language tends toward the absolute and uncompromising despite the recognition by policymakers, lawmakers, and those who implement policy that rights claims must be prioritised and balanced with competing claims. Framing moral claims or aspirations in terms of rights does not automatically guarantee their legitimacy or the capacity for other persons or for state agencies to meet a need. It is not surprising that such claims are frequently stated in conflictual or adversarial manners, sometimes justified, sometimes not. It is not surprising therefore that there is some resistance to an inflation in rights discourse for fear of the adversarial stances and seemingly irreconcilable positions we see in such debates as those surrounding abortion being extended to more areas. Similarly, the adversarial and litigious culture of the United States is not one we desire to see transplanted in any way in Australia.

The capacity for our society to have coherent moral discussion is in a bad way. Numerous philosophers, social theorists and theologians have provided various diagnoses of this reality in our pluralistic culture which pressures us to create an ostensibly neutral, supposedly ‘secular’ language. Human rights discourse appears to some to be just that. However, it is more likely that our instinctive leap to claim ‘rights’ for all and every moral or political aspiration is not access to a universal language so much as an attempted shortcut to getting what we need (or perhaps just want) rather than going through the difficult processes of moral argument and persuasion.

4.  Reframing ‘Rights’ Language

It is not our intention by any means to resist moves to see the poor and marginalised, the victimised or oppressed lose what rights they have or fail to be protected with rights they should have. We desire instead to see a process of education and deliberation—which may well lead to legislative changes or even a statutory charter—that properly grounds rights and really does advance our aspirations to embody the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human rights in its complex outworkings.

Naturally, the social dimension of rights needs to be properly elaborated in any discussion. It has been rightly said that discussion of moral and civic responsibilities needs to increased; though it is difficult to see how well this discussion can be encouraged in an individualistic culture where the assertion of a ‘right’ to ‘do what I like’ so long as ‘I don’t hurt anyone’ is paramount and what ‘hurt’ actually entails is unclear. Comments from the Consultation members concerning the need to speak more of the common good are encouraging.

But what exactly are rights? We suggest that rights are warranted claims on a commitment of a particular society or agency thereof to guarantee particular goods or prevent unfair restrictions to access them. We do not simply ‘have rights’ as ‘individuals’. We have rights in community with others committed to our good. We can legitimately argue that there are rights that all human beings ought to have. In this respect we can call them ‘human rights’. In other words, rights do not trump moral argument or recognition but are the outcome of such. We recognise there are certain essential goods (such as particular kinds of freedom) that are essential for human flourishing. When we commit to guarantee access to such goods as far as it is reasonably possible for us, these can be enshrined as rights. However social recognition should not be subverted by the mere claim of a (novel) right and enshrinement through legislative stealth. The place of culture and social recognition must be upheld. If culture is subverted through overreliance upon rights language, we actually undermine the discussions of common good required to create or sustain a culture that is truly committed to ‘human rights’.

Such concerns need to be at the centre of any ongoing discussion of the future of rights in our country. Any rush into expanding rights discourse that does not adequately deal with these difficult and problematic issues is ill-advised and may well lead ironically down a path of less concern for each other in our diversity and for those in serious need. Our responsibilities to help others must transcend ‘rights’ and reach for a higher justice.