Nothing but Blind Pitiless Indifference

Many of my readers are no doubt familiar with Richard Dawkins, probably the world’s most famous and outspoken atheist and critic of religion. The author of The God Delusion has recently had his 1996 humanist of the year award withdrawn by the American Humanist Association for statements that demean marginalised groups.

Just what statement was this? It was a tweet.

Harmless enough right? Well, not in this age. Especially not for the secular humanists. There is a beautiful irony in this. Rev Richard Dawkins has not caught up with the implications of his materialist religion. He’s the chap who wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Here’s what happens when your religion has no transcendent authority mate. If there is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, there certainly is no rationality. You’d be best just to watch which way the mob is going and run with them. Alternatively, you could stop suppressing the truth, believe in the God who is and who is the reason there is truth and rationality. That’s God’s voice you are hearing in creation that causes you to know men can’t really identify as women.

Who is changing Whom?

For a generation now, the air has been thick with the talk of “changing the world,” but who is changing whom? There is no question that the world would like to change the church. In area after area only the church stands between the world and its success over issues such as sexuality. Unquestionably the world would like to change the church, but does the church still want to change the world, or is its only concern to change the church in the light of the world? Something is rotten in the state of Evangelicalism, and all too often it is impossible to tell who is changing whom.

Os Guiness in Impossible People

Reddit Parenting Advice #6

Today we are looking at the topic of tantrums which every parent with toddlers will be familiar with. The title of the Reddit post was “Tantrums are ruining parenthood for me”. Given that the entire post is long, I will comment on a few sections of it.

Let’s begin with this chestnut. I make most of my decisions based on whether or not it will result in a meltdown. If they have a meltdown, then I have a meltdown. Because of this, I feel like my children run the show—they are my boss. This mother makes her decisions based on whether or not it will lead to a tantrum. This is precisely the opposite of what she should be doing. She is electing for the easy choice hard road scenario we have mentioned in earlier posts. Interestingly, she knows that this has lead to an untenable parenting situation. She sees that she is controlled by her child’s tantrums because they impact her choices.

Our mother here needs to change her behaviour. Instead of running from meltdowns, she should seek them out. What do I mean? I do not mean that she should actively try to cause her children to throw tantrums, but she should use all situations to send her children the message that she is the authority and she will not be moved. If she senses she is about to make an ‘avoidance’ decision, she should instead aim for the tantrum. This stage of parenting is all about asserting authority. This is often the hardest when you are away from home. If she says it is time to leave the park, and the little one becomes upset, she should sternly say something like, “Mummy is the boss. We are going.” Then if the child continues to refuse she should pick him up and carry him to the car. At home, things tend to be easier, and she should use this to her advantage. More time at home with a toddler is a good thing, because training can include physical chastisement that might not be appropriate in public situations. An example might be she sees her toddler playing with some books that she does not want wrecked. In a commanding voice, she should say, “Don’t touch.” Invariably, the toddler will make a whining or screaming noise and keep on touching. This is the cue to walk over to the child, take the object away from him, give him a sharp tap on the hand or leg and say sternly, “Mummy said no!” This must all be done with no outward emotion. Short stern statements are the way to train toddlers.

If the child continues to whine and scream, a firmer impartation of knowledge to the seat of understanding (!!) may be called for along with a statement such as, “We don’t scream.” or “No tantrums!” Then, require a “Sorry Mummy” from your child.

This is what parenting during the toddler years needs to look like. Your goal is to demonstrate every day to your child that you love them, that you are their authority, and that what you say must be obeyed immediately, or there will be negative consequences. Consistent self-discipline in this area is key. Regularly acting like this does make tantrums less frequent as your toddler realises they are not worth the effort. Children disciplined in this way learn to become more compliant.

Our mother goes on to say, “I want to be able to focus on my kids and empathize with what they’re feeling rather than resent them for their behavior. I feel like I simply can’t do that when they are screaming in my face and stomping around the house. It feels like I’m physically incapable of viewing things from their POV during a fit.” Most of the time, you do not need to learn to empathise with a toddler. Much of their behaviour is completely selfish and destructive. Their emotions are ridiculously over the top. We do not want to empathise with these things. We want to train them to appropriately express frustration and disappointment, and throwing a tantrum is not appropriate. They need to learn from adults how to appropriately express themselves.

Cruel Mercies

It’s a funny thing. Those of a more godless statist bent tend to like to paint those who disagree with their methods as uncaring. But the truth is, we are actually caring, it’s just that our care is more thought out. We tend to be sceptical of state solutions because…well when have they ever improved a situation before?

A classic case is all the hand-wringing about child poverty. Leaving aside the definitional problems of child-poverty, what is one of the largest causes of child-poverty? Sole-parent families are a huge contributing factor to child-poverty. Lindsay Mitchell, a researcher into welfare in New Zealand recently authored a report which found that although single parent families make up 28 percent of all families with dependent children, they are the poorest families in NZ. Indeed, 51% of children in poverty live in single parent families, and these parents have the lowest home ownership rates and highest debt ratios. But do we see our leaders point out the truth that men and women who decide to have children together ought to stay together for the welfare of their children? Do we see government initiatives to support and strengthen two-parent families? Do we see an acknowledgement that this is the best way to bring children up? Of course not, that wouldn’t be…kind. So instead our leaders encourage behaviour that leads to more and more children being born into poverty and therefore we increase income inequality and hinder the life prospects of a large proportion of our population.

Truly, the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Let’s Reject Co-Governance

If you are concerned about the move towards co-governance in New Zealand – and as a citizen of a democracy, you should be, then you need to take a look at this post which is a reproduction of a recent newsletter from Hobson’s Pledge. It highlights a Government plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to establish two governments in New Zealand by 2040, one for Maori and one for everyone else. Then, when you have read that, go here and sign the petition. Go on, do it!

Masculine and Feminine Imagery

Recently I’ve been thinking about why Christianity seems to currently appeal more to women than it does to men. As a man, I’ve found church services somewhat difficult for years now, despite acknowledging Christ as my King and Saviour and leading and teaching my family the faith.

A recent thought I’ve had is the images or metaphors we use for the faith. Some of these are more feminine and others more masculine. Consider first the way Christianity can be described as a relationship with Jesus. Songs can be sung about this relationship and we can celebrate Jesus as our friend and the lover of our soul. Obviously, these are biblical truths. This metaphor appeals to a more feminine approach to faith.

Now consider the way we can describe the faith in military terms. Jesus is our king. We are in a battle, but the powers of darkness are being subdued and Christ will make a footstall of all of his enemies. Again, biblical truths, but this imagery resonates far more with a masculine approach to faith.

Does the church need to balance out the relational imagery a bit more with the more masculine warfare imagery to engage men? Imagine if in our church services we sung more songs that focus on the kingship and authority of Christ and the destruction of evil and the danger of the battle we faced. Imagine if the tunes we used were more majestic and triumphant. Imagine if our services were like military briefings where the troops were updated on the battle, encouraged and given their orders as they go back out into the battle during the week.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the main issue men have with church, but I think the imagery we use is probably symptomatic of a larger problem – a feminine approach to faith that disengages men.

Envy – the sin nobody readily admits to

The following is an extract from Douglas Wilson’s blog, which I’ve become a bit of a fan of. You can find the full post here. It’s an extract from a short sermon on the topic of envy which seems to me to be a very important topic at present.

In striking contrast to many other sins, nobody readily admits to being envious. Envy is petty and malicious. Envy is unattractive to just about everybody, and in order to operate openly in the world, it has to sail under false colors. Envy is clandestine; envy is sneaky. To admit to envy is to admit self-consciously to being tiny-souled, beef jerky-hearted, petty, and mean-spirited, and to admit this is dangerously close to repentance. To be out-and-out envious is to be clearly in the wrong, to confess yourself to be an inferior.

And so envy often decks itself out with the feathers of admiration, and tends to praise too loudly or too much. One writer said to “watch the eyes of those who bow lowest.” The praise can come from someone who does not yet know his own heart, or it can come from someone who is trying to position himself to get within striking distance. Guard your heart; don’t allow yourself to become an unctuous or oily flatterer.

Envy occupies itself much with matters of social justice, and becomes a collector of injustices, both real and imagined. Since envy cannot speak its own name, the closest virtue capable of camouflaging the sin is zeal for social justice. And since true Christians should be very much concerned with genuine justice, be sure to run diagnostics on your heart as you do so. This is because our modern political tangles are a veritable festival of envy, everywhere you look. Trying to find envy in our political disputes is like trying to find some beads at the New Orleans Mardi Gras parade.

And envy gets worse as a person’s gifts get greater—when dealing with talent, artistic temperaments, and great intellectual achievements. We sometimes assume that we can “cultivate” our way out of the temptation, which is the reverse of the truth.

Reddit Parenting Advice #5

In previous posts I began looking at questions parents had on Reddit. Thus far we’ve looked at putting a 15 month baby in a cot, an overweight child, the issue of oppositional defiance disorder, commonly known as childhood and the cost of daycare. In our fifth Reddit parenting post, we are looking at the issue of cell phones.

I was 16 when I got my first phone back in 2008 … but in today’s everchanging world, that seems “too old,” and I have no idea what is an acceptable age for kids to get their first cell phone. Like, ACTUAL cell phone with cellular, not just a tablet to play on or whatever.

Firstly, today might be an everchanging world, but wisdom is unchanging. Wisdom knows what children are like. Wisdom is able to apply principles to different situations and periods of history. That’s what we need as parents. So what are some timeless biblical principles we can use in this case.

Principle 1: Do not base your parenting rules on what everybody else is doing. What is acceptable in your family does not have to be the same as the vast majority of families. It might be, especially when the vast majority of families seem to be doing a good job of parenting. But with epidemic levels of anxiety and depression in young people today, it might likely be that you need to do things differently.

Principle 2: One of your primary jobs as a parent is to help protect your child from harm. Children are ignorant of danger and are easily exploited. You are responsible for the inputs in their life, and you are responsible that these inputs are not damaging to their development and moral character.

Principle 3: Parents are responsible for putting their children on the path toward self-discipline. Good parenting leads children to develop disciplined character. Children who have been raised well will not need someone standing over them watching them to ensure they are doing the right thing.

So let’s apply these principles to cell phone issue. Consider first of all why your child needs a cell phone. Is it because they are travelling a long distance regularly without you and you want them to be able to contact you in case of emergencies? Is it because all their friends have one and they feel left out? In other words, do they actually need one? If you are just getting them one because all the other children have one, you are not being guided by principles, unless your principle is simply “Do what everyone else does”, which surely is not a very wise principle.

Let’s assume that we have a real reason for a cell phone. We aren’t just giving our children one because all their friends have one. Now we can ask what kind of cell phone do they need. Because giving a cell phone is not some insignificant action. If we are giving them a smartphone and internet access, we are at the same time giving them access to a host of opportunities to waste time or degrade themselves including social media and pornography. For this reason alone, it may be wiser to hold off giving a smartphone, and give them an old phone with no internet access. Even then, it may be wiser to have a family ‘dumbphone’ that they can take when they go out.

Be aware that any phone you give your child gives them the opportunity to develop relationships without you knowing about it. Given that your job is protecting your child, you want to be sure they are at an age they can handle this. My advice as a man who has worked with youth for most of my career is that you want to put this off in almost all cases until your child is in their late teens. I cannot tell you how many good kids have ended up doing stupid things that have had significant long-term effects all because they had cell phones and naive parents.

I think it’s really easy for parents to see their 12-year-old as very mature and think, “They can handle this!” Invariably they cannot. A good kid at 12 still has to go through her teens. Teens have to manage issues like body image and sexual desire. They need to figure these out with wise adult counsel. What they often get when they have unfettered access to the internet is foolishness. Why do we have girls cutting themselves, struggling with anxiety and depression and becoming anorexic? Often because they are encouraged into this by the relationships they form online. Remember, the teenage mind is often not particularly rational, but emotionally driven. You need to protect them at this vulnerable time.

What about our third principle? How are we preparing them for adulthood? How are we ensuring they develop self-discipline? I think you really want to see this happen in small things first. Just as you wouldn’t let your 10-year-old drive the car, own a rifle or have whiskey, there are some things that require a certain amount of maturity for children to handle. It is my experience that unfettered internet access and cell phones are one of those things. So look for signs of self-discipline and responsibility in schoolwork and home chores as well as a growing discernment and wisdom from your children. When you see this is woven into their character not just on show for when adults are around, then you might consider that your child is cell phone ready. Personally, I think the cell phone is like the key we got on our 21st. It’s not a toy, it’s a tool for adults. My current thinking on this is it’s probably 18th birthday material for our children.

A quick guide to truth and falsehood

If people have always said it, it is probably true; it is the distilled wisdom of the ages. If people have not always said it, but everybody is saying it now, it is probably a lie; it is the concentrated madness of the moment.

Anthony Esolen in Out of the Ashes