Right Reason

Now that the pre-election madness is over, the podcast will be swinging back into action. The next episode will be on the “argument from atrocity,” where some argue that we should all reject Christianity because of its involvement with atrocities in history like the inquisition or the crusades.

Stay tuned!

Tomorrow on November 8th New Zealand voters will decide who will govern this country for the next three years. In the last few blog entries I’ve given a fairly good idea of where I stand and the kind of government I would like to emerge from that election. Today I will not say anything at all about that. What I say today will hopefully have relevance well beyond the New Zealand election. It is as relevant for us as it is for the recent American election and Canadian election (whenever that is) as well as any other country’s election.

I know what I want in a government, but I also know that political salvation is not merely wishful thinking, it is idolatry.

Although I have my disagreements with the late Cornelius Van Til as I have mentioned in a previous podcast episode, when he was right, he was right (and while I’m at it I may as well add that A = A). In a slightly different but related context (namely that of philosophical ethics), Van Til made this pronouncement:

“There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy”

(Christian Theistic Ethics).

In this context, “theonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from God, and “autonomy” means deriving our standard of right and wrong from ourselves, either individually or collectively.

The election has the potential to do some good for our economy, for our levels of (un)employment, for the overall financial wellbeing of New Zealand families and their incentive to better their lot, for the way we treat the environment, to provide us with greater choice when it comes to education, along with many other things. But that’s it. That’s all it will do and that’s all it can do. Some of those things, I am sure, really are more in keeping with a Christian outlook than others, but let’s be realistic. The next government may be tougher on crime, but it will not and cannot overcome the self serving spirit, answering only to itself. It might punish revenge, but it cannot curb hatred or malice. It might give money to families, but it cannot make them good families, make them wise in how they use that money, give parents the mind to love and raise their children as they ought, give children the wisdom to follow their parents’ instruction, or cause parents to be faithful to one another. It might tax people to the hilt, but we might end up with resentment and envy rather than a caring society that wants to look after its poor. It might cut taxes, but it cannot cause people to value what they earn and exercise godly stewardship with what we are provided with. It might give us freedom of religion and the ability to serve God with no fear of censorship or government reprisal, but it cannot do a thing to cause us to actually serve God at all. This is what I think is wrong with many laws that we already have in New Zealand. They exist because of the hopeless delusion that they can actually make us better people. This is not the role of our government. That is the role of the Holy Spirit.

The next government, I hope, will allow us more freedom to follow God and to not serve or enable an agenda that is contrary to our faith. But in our country, that is as much as we should think that we can ask or expect. There are people for whom, as far as I can tell, politics is their religion (making it ironic that they think that religion and politics have nothing to do with one another). Placards and megaphones replace pulpits and pews, but the actual form their religion takes is immaterial. They labour away under the illusion that by screaming, shoving, waving and voting as they are, they are ushering in the kingdom of God (albeit with a different name). What else is there for them to look to? If values are not enshrined in the law of the land, then they are not enshrined at all, right?

No government, prime minister, president, congress, parliament, queen or king can be the messiah that some people are looking for in this election. The consequences of rejecting theonomy in the broad sense that Van Til meant are tragic. His view, and mine, is that human rule-making vacillates and changes, having no bedrock foundation and is often a product of whatever group of people happens to hold power. What is constant, what is based in fact, what is the measure of our endeavours, is the word (in the sense of the will or decree) of our creator. What we ultimately need can never be delivered by our government, it can only be given to us by our God because of the work of His Son. This is as true in a free market liberty loving society as it is under an oppressive communist dictatorship. For those familiar with the work of Augustine, we should not invest our life and aspirations in erecting the city of man in the hope that it will give us what the city of God promises.

I want a good government. I really do. In fact I think a government that knows its limits and realises that it is only the law of God that provides a moral framework within which all of us operate (either in line with it or in rebellion against it) is better than any other. But a government is just a government. If you look to it the way so many starry eyed, expectant voters are when it comes to tomorrow’s election, you will be let down. You will either realise that you’ve been let down when the government fails to deliver that which you most need, or you will not realise it at all, and you will replace God with an idol, thinking that it has given you that which you most need.

In a democracy, a good government does not ultimately make a better country. This is to put the cart before the horse. The fact that we live in a democracy means that a good country produces a good government. They come from among us, and we vote them in, remember? Whoever wins this election, let’s work on a better country – that is, better people – so that we will have a better government. And that is something that the government simply cannot produce. This is the task of the Church and it takes the power of God.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

Glenn Peoples

My opinions on politics are, no doubt, subject to change. But this is whee I am just now in my thoughts on the state of our voters. It is not pretty.

Read More

Are you the straight shooter that I’m looking for?

I’m looking for someone to join the Beretta team – a team currently consisting of one. You’ll become an author here at Say Hello to my Little Friend, you’ll be an occasional co-host on the SHTMLF podcast too. You’ll have at least a Master’s degree in theology or philosophy, or be working towards one, and basically I have to like your style and you can’t be someone who thinks all the material at this site is crazy. I don’t ask much, do I?

Here’s another thing: I’m not part of any EEO agreement, so I can say this: I’d actually prefer a female to come on board (but that’s not an ironclad rule). Basically I think a woman would make a great addition to the podcast show, and I don’t want to encourage the outlook that conservative and serious theology or philosophy are men’s territory. If you’d be interested in being involved, or you know someone who you think would be great for this, let me know!

Oh, and I promise: You’ll get paid twice the amount I do.

Last year our Labour Government was responsible for the passing of the Electoral Finance Act, a new set of laws regulating political advertising. The act has always been a bone of contention since its introduction, and it has been recently slammed by an Auckland law professor as an attack on freedom of speech. Professor Bill Hodge says that Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister has failed to protect our right to free expression.

So what’s wrong with this law? A few things, actually. Here’s a simple list of regulations that the law involves.

If you want people to Adopt a set of beliefs, you can promote them, right? Sure, you can put up posters, pay for billboards, buy advertising on TV and radio, and so on. How much can you spend? As much as you like! It’s your money, and you’re using to do no more than express yourself and promote your beliefs (or sports club. or whatever, you get the idea).

The Electoral Finance Act  changes all that. As a citizen you can’t do that when it comes to trying to influence the opinions of potential voters. You’re not allowed to use your own resources at your own discretion to try to encourage people to vote (or not vote) a particular way. If you happen to be a millionaire businessman who’s sick and tired of the interventionist approach of Labour, not sure which party you want to support, not a member of any party, you are forbidden by law from spending, say, $200,000 on a campaign to encourage people not to vote for them. You may not do that, never mind the fact that it’s your money.

What happens if you do these things, and what time period do they cover? well, the election is on the 8th of November, and these restrictions (and others, as I’ll mention in a moment) apply from January 1. Mai Chen explains:

The Regulated Period has Started

The “regulated period” for the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (Act) began on 1 January of this year and will end with the close of polling day. During this period, the provisions of the Act regulate a variety of activities the costs of which may be deemed under the Act to be “election expenses”. This is the cause of some anxiety amongst clients who, by reason of their financial support for political parties or their engagement in questions of public policy, fear they may be required to comply with the complex provisions of the Act. Advising such clients is not easy given the vague wording in some key provisions, and the interrelationship between provisions scattered throughout the Act. Moreover, penalties of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fines of up to $40,000 for wilful breaches (“corrupt practices”) or up to $10,000 for any other breaches (“illegal practices”) are likely to have a chilling effect for clients with a low appetite for risk and no wish to become a test case.

For laws with such stiff penalties, it’s particularly troubling that the law community is complaining about how difficult to interpret the law actually is.

Oh, another thing – If you’re just Joe average who wants to spend $50 on a newspaper advertisement or a bit more on some pamphlets, you’ve got to make sure you list your name and address on any such advertising. That’s right, if you want to put a political message out there, you’re required by law (I draw your attention again to the penalties listed above) to let the whole country know where to find you. And bear in mind, according to the Act this doesn’t just apply to telling people to vote or not vote for a specified part or candidate. here’s what it says: It includes encouraging people to vote for specific parties,

… or for a type of party or for one or more candidates or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken or pursued, whether or not the name of the party or the candidate is stated.

Let that sink in. If you try to encourage people to vote or not for a general type of party or candidate, even if you offer no indication of which party or candidate would be the best, you can’t spend as much money as you like, and you have to tell everyone where you live.

As M and M noted, Bob McCoskrie found out just how much of an interest people who don’t share your political views take in these personal details that one is forced to publicise. This is a recent(ish) photo of his front lawn:

Decorated by strangers int he night with – get this – 1,000 (plastic) knives, with a threatening note taped to his front door – just in case there was doubt about why the knives had been put there.

It’s a rather convenient way to find out where your political opponents live. Just require them by law to tell you!

This came to my attention today, and it’s worth a read.

It’s some commentary by Paul Jaminet over at the BrothersJudd blog on a review of Jeremy Waldron’s book, God, Locke and Equality, which is probably my favourite book on John Locke and political philosophy.

Interestingly, the review that Jaminet is commenting on, originally by Victor Nuovo, makes the comment:

Since contemporary liberal theory, at least in its dominant Rawlsian version, excludes Christian theism, along with all sorts of comprehensive moral outlooks, religious or secular, from political discussion, [Waldron’s campaign for the contemporary political relevance of Locke’s theism] must show that this exclusion is self-defeating.

It’s rewarding to see people saying that this is what’s required to be done, since this was one of the chief contentions in my recent PhD thesis.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Hmfoo&altl=Qfpqmft Now there’s a real option for American voters. 🙂

I found Ben Witherington’s comments here on a recent find interesting.

The find is an incantation bowl, used in cultic practices. It bears the inscription: “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS.” The find may date as early as the mid-first century, and appears to atest to the fame of Christ spreading to magicians who sought to draw on this new power for their own ends. This actually occurs in the New Testament, for example, in the famous case of “Simon the sorcerer” in Acts chapter 8.