Moral Confusion

One of the great marks of our time is our moral confusion and schizophrenia about the most basic issues of life. For all our technological prowess, we are moral babes.

A classic case is the issue of unborn babies. Are they human beings with all the dignity and rights that come with that, or are they just a bunch of cells that can be removed at will? The answer is…it depends.

Last year, one of the hosts of Breakfast, Hayley Holt, suffered from a miscarriage during one of the lockdowns. Quite rightly, Holt was devastated, and suffered greatly especially with the lack of support due to the lockdown. It was absolutely wonderful to see her co-hosts grieving with her and offering her words of hope and support.

What makes this incident so striking, is that a few months earlier, Holt interviewed Dr Alison Knowles, euphemistically termed ‘abortion practitioner’ (rather than cold-blooded baby killer) about the abortion law reform. In this interview Holt says in passing, “whilst it is a women’s right,” suggesting she herself might be pro-abortion. In the same segment, her colleague John Campbell, although congenial, does grill the pro-life interviewee in a way that slants the whole piece as supporting the law change.

An implication of this double-minded approach is that the value and worth of a human being (in this case an unborn one) is based on something extrinsic. An unborn child has rights and value to the extent his mother wishes him to live or not. But surely this is a reprehensible moral system. We know that in 2020 a four-week-old baby, Maree Kiwana-Makanihi Takuira-Mita Ngahere died as the result of a brain injury. She had been beaten multiple times by her father Jahcey Te Koha Aroha o te Raki Ngahere. Clearly, despite having Aroha in his name, Jahcey did not value his poor daughter. But in this case, we say that what he has committed is murder. Maree’s value is not based on whether her father or mother values her…at least it isn’t after she is born.

Scandalous Waste?

In a recent post, we considered the importance of long term thinking in Christian life. I hinted at the importance of long term thinking with regards to family, as I have done previously in a post entitled Your Most Valuable Ministry.

Recently my wife and I have been reading a book called The Disciplines of a Godly Family by Kent and Barbara Hughes. There is a lot of gold in this book, but we were particularly struck by a couple of quotes in the introduction, which I will reproduce here.

We must not succumb to the deceptive mathematics of worldly thinking that considers the pouring out of one’s life on a hidden few as a scandalous waste of one’s potential.

And a little earlier in the introduction.

Society applauds the person who designs a building more than it does the one who attends to the architecture of a child’s soul. Our culture values a face that is known to the public far more than it does a countenance reflected in a child’s eyes. The world sets a higher priority on attaining a degree than on educating a life. It values the ability to give things more than it does giving oneself. This approach to self-worth has been relentlessly sown by modern culture and has taken root in many Christian hearts, so that there is no room for another self – even if it is one’s own child.

Why the Big Hooha About Conversion Therapy?

In a recent post we looked at media misquotes from Parliament’s Justice Select Committee report into conversion therapy. The mainstream media in typical fashion seems to be stirring the pot and trying to make this an issue to garner support for the change in law. Younger friends have informed me that Instagram was flooded with people posting their support for a law change. Typically our one-sided media does not seem to be giving a fair hearing to all viewpoints and is painting the law change as only positive.

Greens party spokesperson for Rainbow Communities Dr Elizabeth Kerekere is quoted as saying, “There is no place for conversion therapy in Aotearoa,” and “Aotearoa should be a place where no matter who you love or how you identify, you are accepted, and no one should be allowed to force people to change who they are through this harmful and traumatising practice.”

Now whether banning coercive practices is what the law is actually trying to achieve is questionable, and perhaps the subject of another post. But the question we should ask is, “How widespread are these traumatic conversation therapy practices in New Zealand?” Answer: Not very.

Family First made a request under the Official Information Act to find out how many complaints about this practice had been made to the Human Rights Commission in the last 10 years.

The Human Rights Commission in response to an Official Information Act request from Family First NZ has admitted that there were no formal complaints and only one informal one. Hardly a huge problem in New Zealand.

This issue is in fact a Trojan Horse. The media is playing up horrific practices which have been perpetrated by the state in the past to ban Christians and people who disagree with the LGBTQ+ agenda from speaking against it. According to Family First, this ban could lead to people being “prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose – if that lifestyle is heterosexual or based on their biological sex. While gender and sexuality are supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve.”

Tactics for Conservatives

In a recent post on Kiwiblog, David Farrar pointed out in passing the typical tactics of those aiming for liberalisation of laws. He writes, “You achieve sustainable change by smaller moves.” He attributes the success of gay marriage to the smaller steps taken towards this (for example civil unions), and the failure of the cannabis referendum which aimed for legalisation rather than first stepping through decriminalization.

I wonder how we of a more conservative mindset could take this onboard. What big goals do we have, and what are the small but winnable battles that can take us nearer to our goals? It seems to me that National governments are generally just breathers before our heads are pushed back under the stagnant waters of moral corruption under Labor governments. It would be good if we could start moving things in the opposite direction.

A key battle to win of course would be education. We must get the government out of education, or at the very least, limit the influence of the secular left. There must be little objectives along the way to this goal. One of them would be to reduce the influence of the teacher unions, and perhaps this could be done by conservative teachers banding together to form an alternative federation of teachers. Another focus could be altering the uniform approach to teacher registration. Why should all teachers have to be registered by the Teachers Council? Why can’t private schools hire unregistered teachers? Another key target would be to offer relatively inexpensive independent schools around the country that provide such a good education that nobody would want to send their children to the local public schools.

Police Ten 7 is a Racist Show?

As mentioned in previous posts, racism is the issue of our day. Despite this, I am not sure that we know what it means any more. Meng Foon, our Race Relations Commissioner has announced to the nation that our police are racist. He was upset that the show Police Ten 7 showed too many Maori and Pacific Island men and wanted the show to ‘proportionalise them’. He cited evidence that Maori are far more likely to be tasered than Pakeha men.

However, before we cry racism, we should switch on our brains. Perhaps there are other reasons that Maori men are more likely to be on Police Ten 7 and more likely to be tasered by police. Could it be that Maori men are more likely to commit serious crime than Pakeha men? Could it be that Maori men are more likely to be violent and resist arrest by police requiring the use of a taser to stop them? The very fact there is a disparity between races does not mean racism is the only possible cause. To assume this is the case is bad science. As a public figure, if you don’t understand this, you should do all you can to educate yourself, and in the meantime, you should refuse to comment on disparities.

I for one would like to see fewer men tasered and a more equal proportion of men represented in violent crime statistics as compared to women. However, I am not going to cry sexism and ask for Police Ten 7 (a show I never watch) to make sure 50% of the perpetrators are women. Men are more likely to be involved in violent crime than women. It’s not sexism, it’s reality. Meng Foon and others like him are unhelpfully stirring up a victimhood mentality with no legitimate reason. While I am sure there are instances of racism in New Zealand, I do not think this is a widespread institutional issue, and pointing to disparities between races does not show racism.

If you want to reduce Maori crime and violence, instead of complaining about Police Ten 7 or accusing the police of racism do something that might help. Look at the cultural factors in all of this. Start looking at family structures for children growing up, gang membership, education levels and drug and alcohol abuse. What if we turned these around? Would that make a difference?

The Long Game and the Short Game

An interesting thing I’ve been pondering lately is the difference between a long term strategy and a short term one. An article that helped me with this is here.

Christians often seem good at short term strategies. One example of this is the huge focus of Christian churches (and here I speak of evangelicals because that is the tradition I am in), on winning converts. Our churches are often geared to seekers and aimed at “Level One” people. We want to win them to Christ, so the gospel message of repentance and faith is hammered. Let’s get those people saved. We tend to be fairly successful.

Another example I’ve personally seen is the ability of entrepreneurial evangelical Christians to get organisations like Christian schools or preschools off the ground. A growth mindset leads to replication and fairly quick growth. We seem to have some skill in getting new organisations off the ground.

Unfortunately, on the flip side, we often neglect long term strategy. One example of this is seen in our approach to child-raising. Scripture is very clear on the importance of family. There are promises that God will show steadfast love to a thousand generations of those who fear him and obey his commandments. Yet for all that, Christian parents are not always faithful in teaching their children to fear the Lord. This can be especially difficult for those who are caught up in ministry. Yet how much better off would the church be if we had not won any converts through evangelism in the past 50 years, but had kept every single child born into a Christian home in the faith. Obviously, this is not a call to abandon personal evangelism, but to acknowledge the history of strategic failure which is having profound ramifications for the Church in the west right now. The door into the faith is wide, but it seems the exit door is even wider. We should stop showing our kids to that door.

A second example can be seen when we return to those Christian organisations that were set up ten to fifteen years down the track, it seems that the original vision is lost. Growth has happened quickly, but holding onto the original mission has come second place to growth. So we end up with Christian schools run by people who think homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice for Christians, or preschools run in exactly the same way as secular preschools. The organisation becomes compromised, and its long term prospects for the gospel are precarious. Perhaps a slower more purposeful growth that considers the long term strategic value of the organisation and its goals would be wiser.

A final example of the church’s tendency to neglect long term strategy is our disengagement with ‘worldly concerns’ in a kind of gnostic dualism. We think that engagement and control of cultural institutions is somehow ‘unspiritual’, and that we should push our children into ‘higher callings’ – ones that are to do with the salvation of souls. Yet how much better off would our world be today, if the Christian leaders of the 20th century had with one voice challenged their congregations to excel in their work so that they could ‘stand before kings’? Imagine if our leaders had with one voice encouraged the laity to get themselves into positions of cultural influence and use that influence for the kingdom of Christ. Perhaps the wide appeal of dispensationalism has had an impact here. Those of a dispensationalist bent are far more likely to consider engagement in the world a waste of time when souls could be being saved. For many, this would be akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think we need to recognise that short term thinking is often the thinking of unbelief. Saul, facing a significant battle, decided to sacrifice to the LORD instead of wait for Samuel to perform this. He was judged. Abraham, instead of waiting and trusting to God’s promises, took matters into his own hand and slept with Sarah’s maidservant. Faithful believers need to be long term thinkers. In fact, the principle of long term strategy is built into God’s world. The yearly harvest typifies this. One sows in season. Despite having immediate use, that seed is made dead to us and buried in the ground, that in a future time it might be raised up producing a fruitful yield. Even Christ’s coming came at the appointed time (Galatians 4:4). God didn’t exactly hurry things, and we must recognise that he is wisdom. Perhaps its time for the church, and especially the leaders of the church to consider what we could do to help the church be more effective in the longterm. What do we need to do now, and keep building slowly over the next 50 to 100 years, that will maximise the impact of the gospel to our children’s children’s children?

As the article I mentioned at the beginning puts it, “To maximize the effectiveness of evangelism, we need not only direct appeals to the gospel, but also a strategic goal to control the organs of culture that determine the presuppositions people bring to the gospel message.” Perhaps we need to be thinking wider than personal salvation, and consider how Christ’s kingship applies to culture and civilizations.

Frivolous Divorce

‘Most divorces are secured for what people before our time would have considered scandalously frivolous reasons – not physical cruelty, not adultery, but willfulness, irritability, and boredom. Then we set such people free – and divorces are more often than not sought by the party most to blame; the greener-grass seeker, the golddigger, the unreliable, even the adulterous. They then may go on, like carcinogenic free radicals in the body politic, to corrupt yet another household, rather than to have their self-will cordoned off in one household and, possibly, healed by the long-suffering and kindness of the spouse, or by simple maturation. At the worst they would be able to say, “I kept my promise, and our children and our children’s children visit us together, and if we could not be excellent spouses to one another, at least we did not make them suffer the pain of divorce.” And now, if those children marry, they will have an example of perseverance to guide them through the straits they will meet in turn.’ 

Defending Marriage – Anthony Esolen

Advice for 20-Year-Olds

Men like Jordan Peterson have a huge following of young people, often young men. In church circles, we can sometimes think that young people are all godless hedonists who are uninterested in the bigger questions of reality. The Peterson phenomenon suggests otherwise. What are they doing that we aren’t? I’m sure sharper minds than mine have considered this question, but I suspect one reason is that they are offering practical strategies for living a virtuous life. Consider the following short clip.

What strikes me firstly is his willingness to challenge young men without resorting to demeaning and haranguing them as if they are failures. In the church our young men can often be looked down on as ‘hopeless’ and needing to get their act together. Here is a man who is like a loving father encouraging a son to man-up in a winning way. He is giving excellent advice that comports with a biblical view of masculinity and the dominion mandate.

Secondly, he’s not afraid to challenge cultural norms. He rightly points out that marriage is more fulfilling than a career. He says, “You’re not going to find something more valuable in your life than a committed relationship with someone that you love that sustains itself across time and that in all likelihood produces children. That’s life. And there may be people for whom avoiding that is the better route, but those people are very rare, and you need a real reason to assume that you are one of those people.” In the church we have more or less taken on the cultural norm of elevating career above marriage by the way we assume that our children should not consider marriage until after they have completed studying and got career sorted.

Obviously, there is more to be said here. We would disagree that familial relationships are the most important thing in life. Christ is our all in all. Yet getting on with getting married is in general a helpful truth provided this is conducted with wisdom and maturity. The truth is that the pattern of marrying and being given in marriage and raising families is normative in the Christian age. While the celibate life is a valid and God-honouring calling for some, we may be in danger of denigrating the normal pattern for growing the church through a godly offspring as well as the normal pattern for avoiding sexual immorality, and the normal pattern God uses for strengthening society and culture and preventing societal decay. Yes work and vocation is important, but family is more important.