Category Archives: Social issues

Psychology explains everything, & nothing

So many conversations involve looking inside someone’s head. Amateur psychologists are everywhere.

In Bible study: “Moses was probably conflicted”; “It must be that Joshua was feeling vulnerable”; ‘Paul’s upbringing made him overly dogmatic.”

In a planning team: “I don’t think she has the right personality to do that job.”

In disagreement: “He must have had a bad experience to think that way”; “I can’t change that, because I need to express myself.”

In these cases, I think the appeal to psychology explains everything (now we know why). And it explains exactly nothing (we don’t have to think about it any more).

My appeal is this: forget the inner forces until we’ve wrestled with the outer detail.

Take the example of reading the Bible. In the modern west, much of our literature concerns the inner life. Novels explore and express the desires, rages, fears, joy and hurts of their characters. We too easily read the Bible as if it’s the same. But the Bible has little comment upon the motives and drives of its rich array of people. It has its own way: plot and narrative, hints and unfolding drama, small details that later become huge. It’s much better if we read the Bible as the Bible. Let its details capture us, instead of forcing it to fit our kinds of writing.

So too with understanding people. Have a look at the screenshot I took from this article. It’s atrocious! The aim of the piece is to help people cope during Christmas. This section is totally superior, smug and self-satisfied. And uses ‘psychology’ to justify arrogance.

What should we do if someone says, as suggested here, ‘We have too many boat people’? I don’t think that statement is true at all, but this author gives me permission to proudly look down on one who holds this opinion.

For a start, the author has already decided it’s bigotry – no reasoning required. Secondly, the boat people opinion is ascribed to deficiency and fear: ‘lack of awareness … often underpinned by a fear of difference.’ Finally, the opinion is scientifically-proven to be dumb: ‘prejudice is linked with low IQ’.

What an arrogant smack-down!

Even better, though, is how the author tells us to exalt ourselves. Once you’ve avoided the topic: ‘be proud of yourself for taking the more worldly, compassionate, self-controlled and educated higher ground and move on.’

All this stuff couched in misused psychological terms, when I could have simply said: ‘I’d like to know your reasons for that, as long as you are open to changing your mind.’

As I said before: forget the inner forces until we’ve wrestled with the outer detail.

When we do this, psychology and the inner life will still be important. And they will be more powerful, I believe. Properly-qualified psychologists will be able to share their insight. Passions in Bible characters will stand out even more clearly (Jesus’ tears in the Garden of Gethsemane, for example). And when everyday folk talk, we will experience true listening and interaction.

Hearts & laws

Leave a Reply

In Albury-Wodonga, the weekly free newspapers used to include a column of reflections. They were written by local ministers, or similar (authors included a local Baha’i leader, as well as someone from the local humanist society branch). I don’t know why they stopped. Equally, I don’t know if they achieved anything!

Cleaning up my computer, I found a few of mine. In the interests of recycling, I will re-release them on this blog.

Imagine if the following law came into effect: that it is illegal to make fun of left-handed people. No more jokes about writing funny, or eating backwards, or being ‘cack-handed.’

What would happen? Two things would result, I am sure.

Firstly, the jokes would reduce. No one wants to be caught out!

Secondly, and most importantly, people would harbour a grudge about ‘lefties.’ That is, men and women may stop making fun but would still resent them. People are tenacious and hold on tightly to even the most irrational convictions.

Laws are important. I hope that Australia’s laws become better and better. But this imaginary situation illustrates the great weakness of law: it cannot change the heart.

For example, Australia has laws against racial discrimination. Yet we all know that some people still hate those of a different skin colour. That’s a good law – but the good law does not change the heart. A stony heart will remain dead and unresponsive.

There’s a mistaken idea I come across repeatedly: that Christians are all about laws. No! Christianity is about the heart of men and women. The Bible shows that God does what national laws cannot do. God can take a stony heart and give it life.

This is put wonderfully in a part of the Bible written 600 years before Jesus was born. God looked forward to Jesus and said, ‘I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from you and give you a heart of flesh.’

Where we distrust our neighbour God alone can move us to love. Where we give God himself the cold shoulder treatment God alone can bring us back to himself.

So let’s think wisely about life in Australia. Let’s support the best efforts of those who make laws. But let’s also remember that the problem of our hearts of stone can only be solved by what God does through Jesus Christ.
August 2005

Quick review: Joined-up life

Leave a Reply

Joined-Up Life: A Christian Account of How Ethics Works by Andrew Cameron

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I loved this book.

Each chapter is written to be clear in its own right, and Cameron invites readers to dip into whichever topic interests us. I chose to read right through, however, and can recommend this approach. Though each chapter does stand, there is a clear sense of building the overall argument from chapter 1 to chapter 47.

There are seven sections. Awareness notes common approaches to ethics. Unawareness uncovers factors too often overlooked as we decide what’s right and wrong. Jesus versus ethics explores the various way the Bible’s message, centred on Jesus, shapes ethics. Five things that matter is where Cameron constructs his ‘unified field.’ Living our lives brings biblical input into contact with an approach not as popular now as it was historically: character or virtue. Life packages looks at some broad life situations (singleness, marriage, work, …). Six hotspots gets into some of the particular issues that often are controversial points of revelation for our differences of opinion.

In this short review it would be neglectful to quickly pass by Cameron’s unified field. His book, I believe, has two parts: constructing the unified field, then employing the unified field. What is it?

In my understanding, the unified field is a set of interconnected inputs for ethical thinking. There is not ‘an answer’ or ‘a single approach’ to ethics – life is more complex and nuanced than that. Therefore ethics is, likewise, more complex.

The elements of the field are these:
Creation: God made things with an order that we can (partially) perceive or learn
Jesus-shaped community: the work of Jesus creates a group of his people dedicated to living a better way, devoted to being in relationships that are shaped by God’s ways
The new future: history has a goal, set by God. This reality will last, and is to impinge on present life
God’s character: God himself has patterns of right and wrong that become normative for his people
Commands: commands are not ‘the’ ethical method. Yet God’s commands give us a quick insight into each of the above four elements

This field is a most helpful way to focus our approach to ethical questions. They do not neglect the major story arc of the Bible – the unfolding of the Saving Lordship of Jesus. Instead, they honour this story arc enough to see how the story of Jesus changes everything in our own story.

View all my reviews

Jesus’ words on in-group bias

Leave a Reply

In-group and out-group are not part of my everyday conversation. Yet I keep seeing these terms. They were in my relaxing cycling reading. We can find scholarly papers on the topic. And it’s such a simple idea that, once implanted in the mind, it’s easy to think of examples all other the place.

Here’s a definition: in-group bias is the simple tendency to favour one’s own group.

Which group? Any group!

Some groups are arbitrary (I follow the Tigers while you follow the Panthers). Some are intrinsic (sex, skin colour, disability, etc). Some are fluid (at different times, an individual can participate in both sides of ‘pedestrian versus car driver’). The behaviour that accompanies in-group bias can be awful. A famous illustration is the movie Blue Eyed, in which groups are formed on the basis of eye colour. A simple idea – the subsequent behaviour is disturbing to all, participant and viewer.

And so to religion. Faith commitment is a prime candidate for in-group bias and all the ugliness that can follow. What about Northern Ireland? What about last week’s Muslim protests against an internet video? Is violence inevitable, or can we find a solution?

Here are three solutions frequently suggested. One religious and useless. One non-religious and handy. And a final religious but effective solution.

Solution: ‘there are no groups’
This religious solution honestly names the hatred that in-groups (‘us’) can generate against out-groups (‘them’). The solution is a form of ‘all religions are the same’. That is, we are all the same group – there is no out-group. A sweet idea, but foolish. It cannot be that God both exists and does not exist (theism versus atheism). It cannot be that Jesus both died for sin on the cross and did not die on the cross (Christianity versus Islam). It’s no solution to ignore reality, logic or history.

Solution: understanding
This psychology page not only discusses in-group bias, but also finishes with five ‘suggestions for tearing down some of those real and virtual fences’. They are all good mental and socials skills to practise: understand the other, put yourself in their shoes, be confident in yourself, etc. Useful stuff, but limited. The limit is that, while it admits difference, it has no power to break through the dangerous boundaries that form.

Solution: Jesus’ way
Jesus knew of the out-group. He called on his disciples to obsess on the out-group. By itself, that sounds dangerous. ‘Obsess on the outsider? OK, that way we can smash them!’ Not so for Jesus. He said:

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”
Luke 6:27-29, 35-36

Look at all the bold outsider language Jesus uses. The reason for the obsession: to show love and bear a cost with no expectation of benefit. This is the way of God – ‘he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil’ – therefore this is the way of God’s children.

This is a stunning solution, for it is the solution God himself completed. God saves his enemies (Romans 5:10). God broke through real barriers to establish real relationship. To be committed to Jesus is to benefit from this love, and therefore to learn how to practise this love. Jesus’ way has honesty (there are groups) and power (God can unite those who hate each other).

For every disciple of Jesus: what a joy!, and what a challenge!

A Christian’s worst enemy

Leave a Reply

A Christian’s worst enemy is usually another Christian.

By this, I don’t mean sinful gossip or slander. Nor have I in mind deliberate violent action. I have in mind the casual put-down, the conversational mockery, the throw-away snub.

Here’s one that’s typical. It’s modified to highlight the standard pattern, and because the original source is irrelevant.

While most Christians stay silent about [real social problem], [cultural identity] doesn’t.

[Real social problem] might be: poverty, mental health, racism, ecology, trade injustice, etc.
[Cultural identity] can be: an author, an NGO, a different religion, schools, etc.

The pattern is all over the place. I’ve seen it in Christian publication, book reviews, blogs, guest speaker introductions, magazines and probably a dozen places I will never remember.

And I hate it.

Why? So many reasons! (Time for that famous blog format – a list.)

It’s smug
‘I’m not like all those other Christians – I see the problem.’
It’s slander
Unless, of course, you have some reason to show that the church was overwhelmingly different from society (different in a bad way). If you are an expert, shoot live rounds. If you really don’t know, then hold fire
It hates what God loves
If Revelation shows us anything about human organisations, it’s that the church survives while all other forces die. And the church survives with joy and beauty. The wedding supper of the lamb (Revelation 19:6-9) has a guest list to die for – Jesus did and his followers continue to
It lacks faith
When I search my life – and yours too! – as well as look at churches, I remain unimpressed. Such a mess we make… Yet the bride of Revelation 19 is dressed in white linen for good works. These works are given by and empowered by God. God promises to complete his work of making a holy people. Do we trust our sight or his promise, our own power or his Spirit?
It’s such casual hatred
If you hate Christians, at least be honest. Rant and rave and express the outrage at whatever sins we’ve committed. Or be fair dinkum like some of the atheist opponents of all things ‘god.’ Please don’t fall for the casual, ‘Yeah, Christians are mostly losers’

Who knows the effect of such regular casual put-downs? This way of speaking of fellow Christians surely cannot spur us to Christ-imitating self-sacrificial love for God’s children. I can’t see it moving us to lay down our lives for the brothers (1 John 3:16).

So, the testing question for author and reader: how do you speak of God’s people?

Thank God for judgement

Leave a Reply

The longer I am a Christian, the more I give thanks that God is the judge. He has set a day for judgement, and set the one who will judge – Jesus, and given proof of this by raising Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:31).

Why would this make me thankful?

Because I keep hearing of awful things. Just recently these include: genocidal activity in South Sudan; foolish driving that kills a passenger; retailers exploiting women by selling porn-themed goods to school kids; prosecution for those involved in Cambodia’s killing fields in the 1970s.

And I pray, ‘End it, Lord! Bring justice.’

I’m grateful for men and women who work for what is right. And more than grateful – I’m impressed by so much bravery and diligence. Yet human justice is never perfect, and too often alloyed with less honourable motives. So I pray, ‘Come, Lord Jesus, and establish the home of righteousness.’

All that, I hope, is quite straightforward. What’s next is more personal, concerning what I notice about myself. It might not be so relevant to you.

I noticed that hearing of injustice tended to lead me to anger, rather than thanks. Perhaps to imagining what I would say, or what I’d like to do. Instead of looking to God’s righteous judgement, I was sliding towards justice by self-determination.

So it’s been extremely helpful for me to remember Romans 12:19. “Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” (See also Prov 20:22, Deut 32:35.) It’s pretty clear: allow God to do God’s job. By all means understand justice and the promised victory of righteousness. But by no means arrogate to oneself the role of eternal judge.

The main reason I need to remember this is to honour God as God. Humility is better than arrogance. As a bonus, there are two big benefits to me.

Firstly, I find it frees me from the niggle and stress of simmering anger. I still hate murder and broken pledges and all that. But I find myself not ruminating or losing sleep as I turn over ‘what I’d do if …’

Secondly – and this is quite important – it frees me to engage and act. That God will judge should never lead to apathy (‘Oh well, trading women is awful, but at least God will do something one day’). Instead, it frees me act as a human today: to communicate, agitate, aim for change … and even to love perpetrators enough to hope for their change in heart and action.

So, in 2012, I aim to remember Romans 12:19 frequently, and to thank God for his coming judgement.

We must, we Must, we MUST be progressive

Leave a Reply

Following journalism on the Labor Party’s same-sex marriage policy is an exercise in watching blindness.

Those purporting to be journalists are so enmeshed with the ‘progressive policy’ that they can see nothing else, nor appear to understand those with whom they disagree. And so they move from reporting to lobbying.

Here’s an example from today. It’s by The Age‘s national affairs correspondent, Katharine Murphy. She calls the push for policy change ‘the enlightenment’ – somewhat grandiose, no? She places all the opposition to the view under the convenient title of religion.

Image: Salvatore Vuono

Plenty of the disagreement comes from Christians, and other faiths. But it’s not unanimous within churches or other faiths. And not all criticism of same-sex marriage issues from believers. (The reality has been covered much better by the ABC’s religion page, with far more understanding of the shades of points of view. Check out this screen grab for a range of views in the titles. Well done to them!)

Murphy, in dissecting Julia Gillard’s view of same-sex marriage, looks (to me) to genuinely want to assume the best of the PM. That I can certainly commend. Here, however, Murphy twists into knots and effectively says, ‘I will be so generous to the PM that I will call her a hypocrite.’ Murphy’s words:

I’m going to give her [Gillard] the benefit of the doubt and believe she believes it [same-sex marriage] in any case.

Hmm. ‘I’d love the PM to be a lying hypocrite – much better than believing that marriage is between a man and a woman!’

There’s the whole gamut of accusation against those – like me – who continue to hold that marriage is a man-woman thing: ‘the sanctity of their prejudice’, anti ‘equality’, ‘state-sanctioned discrimination’, being against ‘fairness, consistency and decency’. It’s the usual heavy-handed stuff.

But Murphy can’t hide the fact that there is more nuance in this, despite her withering dismissals. She mentions that the Howard government held to man-woman marriage and allowed superannuation inheritance for gay couples. Don’t wait for her to note that this disproves the silly arguments of prejudice.

Unsurprisingly, I’m still convinced that the legislative description of marriage is useful for caring for people. Also that changing it will soften our collective resolve to persevere in (real) marriage. Such change will hurt many people, men and women, straight and gay, kids and adults. I’d long for Murphy to have engaged this real concern!

If the laws change, it won’t hurt me. It won’t be the end of the world – no one has argued that it’s that important. But it will hurt people, and therefore be unloving to our neighbours.

Pokies & local ‘giving’

1 Reply

I read this short article about our biggest local club, Albury Commercial Club, of which I am a member.

The club made a profit of nearly $3 million in the 2010-11 financial year. This was more than forecast, and allowed the club to eliminate bank debt. A good news story!

Then we find a spray against the federal government attempts to curb poker machine use.

“We cannot let this happen and the club industry is working extremely hard to make sure it doesn’t,’’ Mr Edmunds [board president] says in a report to the 26,275 members.

“The repercussions would be devastating.”

The CEO, Bruce Duck, agrees.

Members, via the media would be well aware of the problems facing
the club industry in May 2012 when the Federal Government has
given an agreement for the introduction of mandatory pre commitment
for poker machine players. This will be costly to introduce, will result
in large income deficits and will end the social structure of clubs we
currently enjoy, like most in the hospitality industry. I hope and pray
commonsense will prevail and we are allowed to continue to enjoy our
Club as we have in the past.

(This quotation is from the annual report to members – the last sentence of it appears in the newspaper article.)

How over the top. ‘Devastating’ and ‘end the social structure of clubs’ signal serious danger. Don’t they? Are these folk really interested in what’s dangerous? How about the danger – or even simply the financial cost – to a single family ripped apart by gambling addiction. Why is there no mention of this risk in the annual report?

It sounds like unalloyed self-interest.

I decided to look at the figures, since I was already reading the annual report.

Total income, $35,954,883.76
Donations to worthwhile causes (phrase from Mr Edmonds’ report), $476,066.16
This is 1.3% of total income
It is a 12.5% increase on the previous financial year
Poker machine income $26,752,597.99
This is an increase of 7.5% over the previous financial year
Other expenses, to compare with ‘worthwhile causes’
Promotions – Zodiac gold & members $1,186,127.20
Entertainment of members, happy hours, etc $918,476.00
Members’ lucky draw $421,858.96
Poker machine duty $9.087.586

My conclusion is that the club is doing well financially, yet its community contribution is marginal. It’s a business, a not-for-profit business, whose prime concern is financial liquidity. To the extent that there is community-building, this is a function of the people involved (in their sporting clubs, etc), as well as a little money going to good causes. Equally, however, the dedicated commitment to retaining pokie revenue is community-breaking.

When the Commercial Club board speaks against regulating the pokie industry, they do not speak for me.

Love for people & structures for people

Leave a Reply

Australia has many current debates about how to care for people. How to deal with illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers? How to define, or re-define, marriage? What’s the best way to provide care for the disabled and respite for their families? What about the effects global warming will/might/won’t have on the people of the world?

There is always the question of what structure to put in place so as to love people. It’s so easy to focus almost entirely on the structure and forget the care.

Structure can be a law (a definition of marriage), or some defined action (moving people to Malaysia). Love is about people (those who get married, people seeking asylum, and the effect on the rest of our community).

What got me thinking about this was the recent announcement of a pregnancy. The child is to be born to lesbian couple Senator Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache. This has been reported on around the world: the UK, China, USA, etc.

The pregnancy makes us think about same-sex marriage, access to IVF, the rights of sperm donors to access children, and the rights of children to know their sperm-donor father. It’s clear that this story has a very political angle, and will be used to argue for or against various structures. Just see the letters to the editor to prove this point.

The $64 question: what should a Christian think, do and say about this pregnancy?

Some expect Christians typically to be angry and offensive. See this blog for an example of someone apparently being taken in by a deception that conformed to his prejudices.

Here’s my quick answer.

First, Christians should love the people involved. I don’t recall my initial reaction. I want it to be something like this: The wonder and joy of new life! I pray for this little one to have every blessing from God in physical and spiritual health.

Secondly – and deliberately second – we can consider what laws/structures/social policies do best for Australia. We can’t ignore it. Yet because it’s second, we remember that care is always first. Such care includes: respect in the manner we speak of Wong and Allouache; accepting that proponents of social change hope and aim to good, even though we consider their method to be wrong; not implying that those who disagree with us are crazy or senseless.

When structures gain priority, love departs. When love for neighbour is first, even structural discussions proceed with love at the centre.