A thought about prayer

I was talking to my Jehovahs Witness friend at the station recently. He was rather enthusiastic about the fact that he saw me handing out tracts in Marrickville at the weekend. "It is always a good thing when people make the Bible more widely known," he told me.

We had a chat about being positive about others' efforts to reach out, but I had to go, as my train came in.

However, I said that I disagree with the JWs on many points -- obviously -- yet have to confess that they have played a positive part in some of the development of my own spiritual outlook. I would have liked to say more.

I am a convinced trinitarian. But, when I was converted, I knew, "God loves you, Jesus died for you, believe it and live as a believer." I didn't know if Baptists believed in the trinity or not.

Bill, where I worked, was not a trinitarian. He belonged to one of the cults which believe that God adopted Jesus as his "son" as a reward for his obedience, and we all may be adopted as sons if we are baptised, believe the tenets of this cult, and obey throughout our lives. Bill took me under his wing and tried to persuade me of his views.

The harder he tried, and the more he urged me to read the Bible, the more I read it and found exactly what he hoped I wouldn't find. A Christadelphian made a trinitarian of me. To cap it off, he tried to use Church History on me: "If you believe in the trinity, you side with the Catholics, and look at the dreadful things they did to Arians at Nicea." His account was so outrageous that I was sure he was wrong. So I found a great Church History text by a leading scholar, and read the story. Yes: both sides did some nasty things, but not what Bill alleged.

As I read Latourette's History further, I began to understand what the parties were saying, and why. It was the cap on my conversion to trinitarian faith.

With that in mind, I return to my Jehovahs Witness friend. He is a good-hearted man, with a generous spirit. Is he a saved man? I don't know -- but I know that salvation does not depend on accurate theology.

This takes me to the question of prayer.

For many years, our church has prayed for the other churches in Marrickville and beyond. We don't ask if they are Protestant, or if they are evangelical. It is part of our prayer for revival in our area. We need revival, and, no doubt, so do they. If they acknowledge Jesus as Lord, we pray for revival for them and for us. We pray that, wherever Jesus is proclaimed as Lord, there will be a God-honouring, Holy-Spirit led, Christ-focused revival.

This means that our prayers are for Anglicans, Catholics and Uniting Church as well as for our own Baptist brothers and sisters.

More recently we have added another group. If they earnestly seek Christ, even in a confused way, even if their beliefs about him are erroneous, we pray for them to find him and know him as he really is. I suppose we think this way about the Jehovahs Witnesses, but that doesn't seem, to me, a good reason not to pray for them.

I wonder what would happen if we really did start praying earnestly for each other, even if we don't like each other's ideas?

Correcting misapprehensions

Whenever a Christian festival arises, it seems that the Letters sections of newspapers and the blogosphere begin filling with debates over the relative merits of Christianity and Atheism. At Easter, for example, even a bishop or two got drawn into the debate in one of Sydney's newspapers.

As a "dissenting" evangelical, I belong neither to the atheists' camp nor to that of the bishops. I felt a certain privilege, being able to observe without having to participate. Several thoughts came to me as I watched.

One point raised was that Atheism can lead to systematic and systemic violence and abuse. This argument comes up regularly, and is a poorly-considered reaction to Atheist accusations that religion is divisive, and always leads to violence and war.

Of course, the Pol Pot, Stalin and (perhaps) Hitler regimes were atheistic and few would disagree that they were horrifically violent. Proponents of non-Atheist religious positions should realise that this doesn't, however, mean that Atheism always leads to violence. The error is that of confusing causation and association.

On the other hand, when Atheists make similar charges about religion, they should recognise that they are falling into the same illogicality. Violent people use religion or irreligion to legitimate their violence.

It takes only a little acquaintance with history to show that this is a weak argument.

A second area of discussion was over whether Atheists can be truly moral. I am interested to note that see fewer believers charging that Atheists must be immoral than I see Atheists assuming that this charge is a Christian position.

As I read the Bible, it seems to me that it supports the idea that religious people and irreligious people are roughly equally moral. After all, it declares that humans are created in the image of a moral God. By the same token, the Bible is also clear that we human beings are all equally failures when it comes to morality. This doesn't mean that the crimes of some are not more horrifying than the crimes of others. We generally consider murder a more evil crime than stealing a biscuit from the office jar. However, both acts are moral breaches, and the Bible argues that no one can claim anything like moral perfection.

Those Christians who think that Atheists are immoral are probably influenced by such Biblical statements as, The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' The Psalmist's point, however, is that those who think they can get away with injustice and oppression because there is no God to give account to are fools. This is not quite the same thing as claiming that Atheism necessarily leads to immorality.

A further point of debate is about charities and community service. I suspect that Atheists and Christians may tend to focus on different areas in this respect. Certainly, Christians seem to predominate in welfare-related services and I think that many Atheists are drawn to environmental causes, but I don't know if my assessment is supported by any hard evidence.

What is true is that both believers of various kinds and unbelievers do engage in community service. However, there is evidence that, at least in the case of the young, "...those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts." (2007 research by academics from Monash University and the Australian Catholic University, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 Jan 2008.)

What we don't know is whether this tendency persists into adulthood. I don't think the research has been done in Australia.

A final charge laid by the Atheists was that Christians who participate in charitable works do it only to gain points towards entry into heaven, or to compensate for a fear of judgement.

I have no doubt that even some Atheists volunteer so as to gain a heaven they do not believe in. Everyone acts in large part on unconscious feelings and desires. However it is certainly no part of Evangelical Christianity to believe that good works contribute "points" towards gaining heaven or avoiding hell. The Bible -- particularly the New Testament -- clearly and consistently rejects the value of works done to gain God's favour or out of mere fear of punishment.

In fact, the orthodox Evangelical position is that eternal salvation is only available through repentance, giving up efforts at self-justification and trust in Jesus Christ for the gift of salvation. To seek salvation through our deeds is a rejection of God's loving gift, and, in fact, treats God as a whore who dispenses favours to the best payers.

The corollary of this Evangelical belief is that eternal life is already the possession of those who trust in Jesus Christ, and that working for the good of others is an appropriately loving response to the Christ who loved us and gave himself for us.

I don't think many Christians in other traditions would disagree to far with that position.

Talking about weather

I was late getting off to sleep on Sunday night, because, having left the windows open for cooling, I found myself having to fend off autumn mosquitoes. Usually, the little monsters are leaving me alone well before March ends. How I wish we didn't have ancient windows that are unsuitable for insect screens!

The Weather bureau tells us that unseasonably warm, sunny days will continue in Sydney for the rest of the week, peaking on Friday with a top of 26 degrees, or about 4 degrees above average.

Some of my American and English friends mocked advocates of global warming during the northern winter because of the extreme cold they experienced. As I remarked then, weather is not climate. And, in Sydney this week, the weather is not the climate, either.

In fact, the expectation is that, sometime on Saturday, temperatures will drop quickly, and ANZAC Day (Sunday) will be quite cold in the morning, warming to a maximum of 23 degrees.

The cause of the change will be the movement of an intense cold front through Victoria and NSW, bringing rain and cool winds

.

On the climate side, Professor David Hand, President of the Royal Statistical Society, a participant in the review of the so-called "climategate scandal", recently concluded that the University of East Anglia scientists had behaved honestly and fairly and had not engaged in deliberate scientific malpractice. In fact, re-analysing the data, he concluded that it shows a clear warming signal.

However, Professor Hand was also critical of the scientists' use of inappropriate statistical methods, which have exaggerated some of the effects of warming. He rejects the infamous "hockey stick" curve which has been criticised by warming sceptics in the past. Hand was surprised that scientists working in the climate change field, where statistical analysis is so vital, had chosen not to obtain more assistance from professional statisticians.

The unfortunate comment by Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia, about a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures was accepted in the report as a mere reference to a statistical technique rather than a devious act to misrepresent data.

An earlier investigation had also concluded that the expression "hide the decline" was scientific shorthand for the act of discarding erroneous data and that, when Jones spoke of a "trick" he meant it was a neat way of handling evidence -- a fairly common use of the term.

One good result of the entire kerfuffle is that, regardless of the outcome of a third investigation focusing on Freedom of Information issues, it is unlikely that climate scientists will be as inclined to hoard raw data or attack their opponents as the East Anglia scientists obviously have been. But, most importantly, the investigations are reinforcing the argument that we are facing climate changes which are at least to a significant extent caused by human activities. And that's something to worry about and act quickly upon.

Catholic Sex Crisis

As a young Christian, I had some involvement with the youth group of what we would now call "an ethno-specific church." That is, it was made up of people with a shared language, culture and geographic background. I saw something sad: the young people had nowhere to go. It was their parents' church and could never be theirs, because they had grown up English-speaking in Australia, with a mixed cultural background.

The majority of the young people left the church entirely, because that was the option they could see. A minority went to Anglo churches, but often integrated poorly. I had a suspicion that, for some of the parents, assimilation was a worse fate than apostasy.

What has this to do with the Catholic Church? The fact is that many Catholics feel they are in the same position. If they do not like, or do not feel they fit in the Catholic way of doing things, they have no clear path ahead. Unlike the Catholics, most Protestants feel that, if they don't like the Baptist way, for example, there are always Anglican, Quaker, Pentecostal or Uniting Churches, and that's just a start.

A religious group which lacks a clear exit path is dangerously close to being a cult.

With the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, many Catholics are disgruntled. German statistics already show a marked decline in Catholic Church attendance. But one must feel for those Catholics who want to leave but don't know where to go. It would be healthy for the Catholic Church to recognise that those who jump ship for another church aren't necessarily abandoning Christianity.

However, many will no doubt stay, and will be faced with the tensions between, on the one hand, wanting to tidy up and go on with business as usual and, on the other, going all out for radical transformation.

It seems to me that celibacy is a major factor in the crisis, though I don't subscribe to the "give them a legitimate sexual outlet and they'll forget about children" idea. Paedophilia is a deeply engrained thing, and tends to persist despite marriage. It is found in all walks of life, not only the Catholic priesthood.

The celibate priesthood clearly not only has room for those genuinely called to a celibate lifestyle, but also for many who, while not desiring sex with adult women, struggle against attractions in various other directions. The priesthood becomes a hiding place and concentration pool, where exposure is more easily avoided. Additionally, where a married minister finds most of his or her community within family, I suspect that Catholic priests are forced to find most of that community sense within their own circles. "Family blindness" is clearly a factor in how so many priests have protected each other.

I am concerned about this crisis, and sad for those affected -- the victims of paedophiles, and the ordinary, decent Catholics who are also victims.

But I am also hopeful. Nearly 50 years ago, the Catholic Church set out on a path of reform. It has been a bumpy road, but progress has been made.

Perhaps the current crisis will be a catalyst for further change. It will certainly tend to weaken hierarchical control and perhaps push Catholics to rethink some of the ways in which traditions -- such as celibacy -- have come to dominate church thinking at the expense of more critical issues. The church probably needs to brace itself for a period of chaos, but, out of chaos, positive change can come.

Let's pray for our Catholic friends.

Answering the vulture and the earthworm

I was sad to see Senator Fielding on the ABC's Q&A panel together with Richard Dawkins. Senator Fielding does not have a good grasp on matters of fact outside his specific professional training, which clearly has little to do with science.

I was sad, too, to hear Professor Dawkins' cheap shot at the senator, as having the intellect of an earthworm. It is this kind of abusive arrogance which gives him -- and, by association, atheism -- a bad name. Dawkins writes eloquently and ignorantly about religious matters, which reveals, not that he is intellectually defective, but that he is lazy in assuming that a junior Sunday School understanding is sufficient to make him an expert. Not unlike Senator Fielding's position with science, really.

I have a growing concern that we Christians often tackle atheism inappropriately.

If I were a Muslim, I would definitely be troubled by Dawkins and his ilk. If I were a Jew, I would at least be uneasy. Neither religion has strong grounds to argue against atheism except on the grounds which atheism itself defines. It is hard to win an away game.

Of course, Dawkins has a point. Religious people can't provide proof of God's existence in the terms he demands. More accurately, science is incapable of determining whether or not God exists -- much like the question of the Higgs-Boson particle. This does not mean that God does not exit. It only means that God's existence is a question is outside the realm of science.

This is not, however, fatal to the question. There are many areas where science can contribute little. It can't tell us if Julius Caesar existed. At best, it may help sort through the evidence.

So why do Christians try to do battle in areas where Christian arguments tend to be weak, and atheist ones strong, yet ignore areas where the tables are turned?

It seems to me that we need to turn our focus back onto Jesus. Let's develop our arguments from a Christological base rather than a philosophical or a merely scientific base.

After all, there is a strong New Testament theme that Jesus makes the unknown, inaccessible God known.

John 1:18 tells us, No one has ever seen God; but God, the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In the 12th chapter (verse 41ff) we see that, in respect of his vision of the exalted Lord in the temple, Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

John perhaps rounds it off with his quotation from Jesus, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us (Heb 1:3): The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Paul, too, writing to the Colossians (1:15) describes Christ as ...the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

There is therefore a clear New Testament assertion that God the Father himself is beyond our direct knowledge or observation, but that Jesus is the revealer of God.

This suggests to me that teleological, ontological and such arguments are something of a waste of time for those who would convince those who argue that no case can be made for God's existence.

While this doesn't mean that there is no place for philosophical points, they are more of a further hint at God's existence than primary ingredients of a case. If a person wants to "see" or "see evidence for" God, surely the place to start is Jesus.

The question, then, is, "How does Jesus reveal God?"

The answer is that Christians are convinced that the attitudes and actions of Jesus show us something about the attitudes and actions of God. If we would know God's attitude to the outcasts of society, look at how Jesus treated them. If we want to know God's attitude to ethnic outsiders, look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. If we want to know about God's judgment, we will find more when we see Jesus attacking hypocrisy, exploitation and fruitlessness than we will learn merely from reading about the Israelites and the Amalekites in the Pentateuch.

I do not often find comments I find useful to repeat in the writings of Rev Fred Nile, but I believe he hits the mark in a recent newsletter:

"If you want to know if there is a God, start with Jesus Christ, who will reveal the truth about Himself and His Heavenly Father."

I'll say, "Amen!" to that.

URGENT: Genocide on the Thai-Burmese Border

I just received this news flash from Geoff Pound, a journalist working in the Middle East. Time: Tuesday 23 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm Thai Standard Time. He didn't give the source of the quote below:

"...I received a call from one of our leaders from the Nyaung Lay Bin District of the Karen State (Kawthoolei) requesting urgent help and assistance (food, medicines, clothing) for the 3000 plus IDPs [Internally Displaced People] who are running for their lives as the Burma army soldiers attacked and burnt down their villages and shooting them on sight."

"This is clearly an act of genocide, the Burma army soldiers attacking, shooting on sight and killing our innocent people, driving them out of their villages, destroying their crops, burning their rice barns or stores. This similar Burma army military operation took place in many ethnic (Arrankan, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karenni/Kayah, Karen, Mon) areas."

"We are calling for the International Community, the UN, US, EU, China, Russia, Japan, India, Asean Community to halt all the Burma Army military operations against our ethnic nationalities IMMEDIATELY."

Cults

A VISIT to Silver Street Mission in Marrickville from John and David Ayliffe on Sunday 14 February will help us understand the problem of cults in our world and in our country.

For 16 years, David was involved in a cult headquartered on Sydney’s northern beaches. During those years, he was alienated from family and friends, lost vast sums of money to the cult, and was entirely devoted to a destructive lifestyle under the control of a woman who claimed to be Christ.

Cults surround us. For several months the manse received regular calls from a young man who had left the so–called Sydney Church of Christ (no links with Marrickville Church of Christ which is, like us, an ordinary evangelical church.) He had been so abused by this cult that he could’nt trust another church, yet he really wanted a genuine faith.

Sometimes we are so accustomed to a cult that it seems little more than slightly off–beam. Yet a closer look reveals the classical features of groups like the Waco–based Branch Davidian or some of the sexually abusive groups reported recently.

Some of the features of cults are:

• Strong, centralised control

• Isolation from former associates including

  family and friends

• Financial control, often requiring income

  to be signed over to the group

• Strict lifestyle control

• Elevation of a secondary source of

  authority (eg., founder’s writings,

  traditions, pronouncements of a “Guru”)

  over the Bible and its revelation of Jesus.

• Severe penalties for trying to leave the

  group, including disassociation from

  family, loss of money or housing

Groups like Mormons and Muslims have been criticised for relying on authorities outside the Bible; Scientologists (who reject the Bible) and Muslims penalise attempts to leave their circles.

Some cults adopt names similar to those of mainstream churches so as to hide their real identity. An elderly lady with poor hearing and eyesight was taken in once by the Mormons, because their name, Church of Jesus Christ (of the Latter Day Saints) resembles Church of Christ. She got out when they asked her to sign a document committing her to tithing.

The underlying problems with a cult usually begin with a leader’s damaged sense of self, often caused by childhood abuse. For example 4th Century Arians went far beyond the idea that we are God’s good creatures, damaged by sin, and thought that we are rotten to the core. So, they taught, nothing human could ever have real contact with God.

Where did Arius get those ideas?

We look forward to what David and John have to tell us.

[10:30 am, Silver Street Baptist Mission, cnr Silver and Calvert Streets, Marrickville. All welcome.]

iPad

The iPad: does it have wings? I guess that Apple hopes it will fly out of the shops, anyway. Some people are saying that it is an iPhone on steroids.

There are specs are at
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/165759,the-apple-ipad-the-specs.aspx

Apple certainly knows how to build up expectations. There's been talk for months. I thought that it might be Apple’s way of getting around the restrictions under which netbook computers suffer. There'd allegedly been a bit of Microsoft-Intel skulduggery with the aim of keeping Linux off netbooks: certainly the specifications for these little devices had been set very firmly by parts and systems suppliers.

Apple has always had one advantage: their current OS is based on Free BSD, a Linux-like UNIX clone. albeit with a nicer interface. If Apple had created a “tablet”, which would not strictly be a netbook, it would be hard for either Intel or Microsoft to dictate the specifications. And Apple had certainly resisted the netbook bandwagon.

And then Apple surprised us all. From the specifications, I was clearly wrong to think that way. The tablet doesn’t use the BSD-related OS and, in a sense, the device comes in below the netbook specification, though not by far. To compensate, it offers greater portability, more responsive hard drive and Apple style.

The following table shows the iPad specifications compared with the approximate specifications of a typical netbook:

	NETBOOK	iPAD
Processor	1.6 GHz Intel Atom*	1 GHz Apple*
Monitor	7” – 12”	9.7”
Weight	1.6kg (typical)	0.7kg
Hard Drive	160 GB (typical, electro-mech)	16 – 64 GB (SSD?)
Connectivity	802.11g/n, Bluetooth, (3g)	802.11g/?, Bluetooth, 3g
Operating system	Win XP Home/ Linux	iPhone
Battery life	under 10 hrs	probably over 10 hrs

* Because the two chips have different architectures, the difference between the two may be less than the clock speed suggests, but it is probable that the Apple chip would process a little more slowly than the Atom chip.

It will be interesting to hear more as more details are released. Things not mentioned in this table are lack of USB ports or a CD/DVD drive. This is a very different beast from the notebook computer - like netbook.

However we are still waiting to see the first models arrive in Australia, and will get a better picture by then of how these devices might be used -- or whether they are a device that comes with limited features and stacks of hype.

* * * * * * * *

Since writing this, more features have been reported, as at

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/12-key-features-the-ipad-lacks-20100128-n1ae.html

For all the hype, this is a very limited device...

Christians and climate change

I am fascinated and horrified that evangelical Christians are numbered among those who deny climate change or attribute it to non-human factors.

SIN AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Bible declares that a high proportion of the ills besetting the environment have an origin in human sin. This is declared at the Fall (Genesis 3) and reaffirmed in places like Romans 8. Even when we do not clearly see the link, a straight-forward reading of the Bible suggests that the link is there.

Furthermore, most of the signs of the return of Christ are environmental. The sun will not really darken and the moon turn to blood. But, from an earth-bound perspective, that is how it will appear. We are all aware of how, for example, volcanic eruptions or bushfires have caused the sun and moon to appear dark, and often reddish.

Burning up of grass and drying of rivers -- these, too, are environmental disasters.

Despite the fact that human sin contributes to environmental damage, God's mandate that humans should have dominion over the creation has never been abrogated. It is just that, in our efforts, we fight an uphill battle.

GIVING THE WORLD A BREAK

There is also a clear command that the land is to have its rest -- sabbaths and jubilees -- to allow it to recover. God said (eg. Leviticus 26:34) that, when his people refuse to listen to him and remain hostile towards him, he will scatter them, lay their cities waste, and let the land have the sabbaths it has missed. This theme is also taken up in 2 Chronicles 36:21.

One evidence of this hostility is in greed: when we put money-making above God's command (as when people fail to give the land its rest) we worship mammon rather than God, because it is impossible to serve two masters.

IDOLATRY AND LAND-USE

In fact, the Bible has far less to say about abortion, homosexual activities, single-parent families and so many other bug-bears of so many conservative evangelicals than it has to say about idolatry, unjust trading, accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor and other forms of economic and social unrighteousness. Yet we Christians far too often assume that these things are beyond God's interest!

COME OUT AND BE SEPARATE

So, when Christians fall in with the world and criticise environmental activity because of its economic costs, they fall in with the world's idolatry and mammon-worship.

I have been around long enough to remember when even non-Christians criticised Soviet-style communism for its assumption that all motivation is ultimately economic (whether or not that criticism was true is beside my point.) Since Reagan and Thatcher, the West has moved to abject mammon-worship and the assumption that economic motives dominate.

It is time for us evangelical Christians to return to our Biblical roots and stand against the world and its ways.

Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu is under arrest in Israel. He is charged with contacting "a number of foreigners" -- something he was forbidden to do as a condition of his release in 2004 from an Israeli prison (http://www.smh.com.au/world/vanunu-arrested-for-alleged-foreign-contact-20091229-liv1.html)

Vanunu worked in the secret Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona and, in the 1980s, came to Australia where he befriended people at St Johns Anglican Church in Darlinghurst, a Sydney inner suburb. One who spent a lot of time with him was Rev. Dave Smith, now at Holy Trinity, Dulwich Hill. Eventually Vanunu became a Christian.

He was troubled about Israel's nuclear ambitions and refusal to submit to International scrutiny. In 1986, he divulged the story and supplied his own secret photographs to a UK Newspaper. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents. The Israeli plan was to say that he had returned to Israel of his own free will, but his kidnapping was seen and photographed, including a message Vanunu had written on his hand revealing that he was a victim of kidnapping.

What was intended to be a secret arrest and trial became very much more public, but Vanunu remained in Israeli custody for 18 years, much of it in solitary confinement. Christian support has been very much part of his survival.

Because of his conversion as much as for divulging the Government's actions, Vanunu has been demonised by the Israeli public. He has been re-arrested several times since his 2004 release. His current crimes seem to have included meeting a Scandinavian girlfriend, staying in a hotel rather than his usual place of residence, and having a letter from the US among his correspondence.

The public needs to be aware of this so that Israel is unable to take action

There is a further issue to consider. Over many years of being a Christian, I have met a number of evangelicals whose attitude seems to be, "You can't criticise Israel. They are God's people, and their return to Palestine is prophesied. Do you want to oppose God?"

I have seen many instances where Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled in the recent history of Israel. But it remains true that persecution, racism and violence are so much part of contemporary Israeli life that it well deserves the description "rogue nation."

In Biblical times, Israel frequently faced God's judgment for injustice and unrighteousness. Yet they remained God's people, continued to have a role in God's saving purposes, and were eventually restored to the place of blessing when they repented.

God's people -- Israelites or Christians -- need to hear the voices of prophets and respond to them, or they will hear instead the taunts of their enemies.

Meanwhile it is vital for those of good will, regardless of their religion or race, to refuse to support injustice and unrighteousness from any source, because to support it is to participate in it.

Evil Santa

If there is one Christmas song which bores into the brain and wreaks havoc, it is Santa Claus is coming to town.

I was thinking about Santa Claus, and the origins of the story in the 4th Century Bishop of Myra (Turkey), Nikolaos. Nikolaos became best known for giving gifts of money to three young women whose impoverished father could not afford their dowries. Without dowries, they could not marry, and they faced possible futures as prostitutes.

It struck me that these girls didn't in any way deserve this gift. It was entirely a matter of grace on Nikolaos' part.

I also thought that it was clearly an act of disinterested love. He had the girls' best interests in mind, and acted accordingly.

It is also clear that Nikolaos wanted nothing in return. As it was an act of grace and love, it was not something from which he stood to gain anything.

Contrast this with the Santa Claus of that song.

"You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town..."

This Santa Claus rewards and punishes, giving to those who perform as he desires, withholding from those who don't. The punishments extend beyond good and evil, and include undesired feelings. Those who express sadness or anger are also likely to lose out.

"He's making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town."

"He sees you when you're sleeping

He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town"

There is no escape from this all-seeing eye. Can't sleep? He's got a little list, and you might be on that.

Contrast the Bible's picture of God:

God commends his love to us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Regardless of what you or I have done, or will do, God still loves us and his gift is still there.

This seems to me to be much better than the evil Santa of that cheery song.

Scientology

Jacob Saulwick, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on November 19, 2009, reports that the Church of Scientology potentially faces an enquiry following a series of accusations in Parliament against the group by Senator Nick Xenophon. Kevin Rudd expressed concern about Scientology, but will examine letters tabled by the Senator before further considering an investigation.

Senator Xenophon will move for an enquiry on the basis of these letters. The Greens support the move, which would include questions of religion-based tax exemption enjoyed by Scientology, and various aspects of consumer protection and OH&S legislation in relation to the group.

Scientology sources say an enquiry would waste of time and money, arguing that former members of religous groups are prone to unreliable accusations.

Accusations include --

• Charges going into hundreds of thousands of dollars to remain in the church.
• Routinely obstruction of ordinary medical treatment (but not abortions) for church staff.
• Pressure on female staff to have abortions, including "forced abortions''.
• "Confinement and torture'' of members.
• Obstruction of police investigation of a death
• Inaction over reports of sexual abuse by its members

Allegations of questionable practices by the Church of Scientology go back over many years, and the group has faced investigations in a number of countries, though it has been recognised as a bona-fide religion in Australia. It is reportedly risky to criticise the organisation, with some claiming they have been threatened with litigation for posting complaints or accusations.

At this point, however, the letters in Senator Xenophon's possession remain unsubstantiated allegations, and the Government has three options: to enquire whether the charges have any substance, to decide that the charges have no substance, or to remain agnostic on these questions while awaiting further complaints, if any.

The Scientologists' arguments that an enquiry is not worth having, either from the point of view of cost or from the point of view of alleged unreliability of the complainants, do not hold water, though.

To dismiss a complaint merely because it came from a former member of an organisation would be both illogical and contrary to the principles of justice.

Even if, on average, people who withdraw from a religion are particularly prone to bias, that says nothing about the reliability of any individual complainant. Furthermore, if one complainant out of the eight who have approached Mr Xenophon can establish a substantial case, that is sufficient to justify appropriate action, while to deny a hearing to a genuine complainant because some other complainants are unreliable witnesses would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

The Scientologist response is also puzzling considering the gravity of the charges. If they have no substance, surely to attack the credibility of accusers rather than to request a speedy enquiry in order to clear the organisation's reputation serves only to increase suspicion of the Scientology organisation.

Letter from Rodrigo de Rato

Rodrigo de Rato has just written to me. He works for the International Monetary Fund, as Managing Director, no less, of a section charged with pressuring banks to pay out monies owed to beneficiaries of wills, winners of lotteries, and creditors under contracts.

Like all such well-established officials, he has an e-mail address where I can contact him at any time -- it is with live.com, as one would expect. No hotmail or gmail here! i am so glad that the MD has such a personal interest in me as to write directly; though he would have instilled even greater confidence in me had he used my real name, and not addressed me as undisclosed-recipients.

The more paranoid among us who stand to receive vast sums might be tempted to question the occasional infelicitous sentence or strange capitalisation of a word, but there is no need. No less a personage than Mr Ban Ki-Moon (UN Secretary General) is involved, and my $12,500,000 will be wired to me, or delivered in a wheelbarrow, from the most trustworthy JP Morgan Chase bank.

I wonder how many of us undisclosed-recipients there are who are all owed precisely $12,500,000? Very interesting...

But, lest I still hold some concerns, his letter assures me, "Note that the above fund has been cleared from terrorist or fraud related activities." I am already breathing more easily.

Of course, sums of money this large can't be just transferred willy-nilly around the world. I have to provide "...full name, direct telephone numbers, contact address, Occupation and age for reconciliation with information forwarded to the bank by this office." And I will have to pay a $US550 insurance charge as well. No doubt those who pay up will find there are delays, and additional charges... and a couple of burly Nigerians at the door if they make a fuss.

Sadly, these rats catch too many people, and the simple underlying reason is greed. People think, "Here is an offer of undreamt of wealth! I may have no right to it, but these people will give it to me, so who am I to argue?"

In their haste to make off with the loot, people fail to notice the gigantic warning signs all over these scams. Then they get their fingers burnt, and some TV current affairs program plays violins while telling the story of the battlers being robbed. But who mentions that it is a case of amateur thieves being done by professionals -- and not particularly clever ones, at that?

The mediaeval Catholics listed greed as one of the seven deadly sins; like all sins, it certainly turns around and bites us when we yield to it.

I hope Mr de Rato slips into his own trap one day and gets squeezed until he realises that he needs to rethink his life's goals.

Meanwhile, feel free to delete his e-mail if he writes to you.

GLOBAL WARMING & COPENHAGEN TREATY

Some people are getting tied in knots over the Copenhagen Treaty. One e-mail I have received is addressed to those who are "thinkers and not just sheep." It suggests that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is about to sign the Treaty on our behalf, and appeals to readers to "...google (sic) Lord Monckton and read all about world governance and what that will mean for Australians."

The conspiracy to which they direct us is in Lord Monckton's head, when he tells us that Obama (Rudd isn't far behind) is poised to sign away US sovereignty to some yet-to-be-created One World Government with vast enforcement powers against any who wish to withdraw.

The writers also appeal to us to give our friends Professor Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven & Earth as a Christmas gift, and allege that global warming theory is a religion, being fed to an unwitting public.

Monckton may have been Thatcher's Science Adviser, but that only confirms complaints from the science community that science was brought into a parlous condition during those years. Perhaps I went too far in comparing him with Erich von Däniken, or Dan Brown with his Da Vinci theories, but he certainly played fast and loose with the Copenhagen process. Yet it is such a typical method for those who wish to mislead: insert a comment here or a heading there, read two passages which don't belong together, or use bold type to create visual links where there are no logical links… Even Plimer is worth more attention, and that’s saying a lot.

The argument against Monckton
Here’s why Monckton’s argument is mischievous garbage…

(1) No one really knows what the final treaty will look like: that’s why the leaders are meeting. They will have various draft documents as guidelines, but there will be a lot of discussion and debate before a final result is achieved – assuming that one is achieved anyway. The various drafts (of which the one Monckton refers to is but one) are similar to Union Ambit Claims: they cover a lot more ground than the final paper will. The idea is to make sure that participants don’t miss something important, and have some idea of what is possible and what is not.

(2) What will be signed cannot be binding on any Government until it is ratified by that Government. No single leader can unilaterally cede sovereignty, except in a dictatorship; and what dictator would do that? This is why there are Constitutions.

(3) Governments are notorious for signing treaties and then failing to ratify them, as well as for ratifying them and failing to act on them in good faith – as many Third World countries are well aware when it comes to commitments to overseas aid by the wealthy countries.

(4) It is hardly conceivable that a majority of countries would ratify (through their Governments) a treaty which gave them no withdrawal option – and, to date, there has been no indication that any party has been considering a binding treaty of that kind. It would be unprecedented in the modern world.

Historically, countries have withdrawn from treaties without greater penalty than loss of international standing. At worst, individual nations might institute some kind of trade embargo or severance of diplomatic ties to a recalcitrant nation.

(5) Monckton’s only true suggestion is that a treaty will involve some kind of ceding of sovereignty: as all treaties do. Such ceding can go no further than the terms of the treaty as ratified by the parties.

How negotiated settlements work
The situation is like what might happen in a conflict between neighbours, except that it is carbon dioxide and methane rather than stones being flung.

Assume that my neighbour is troubled by my habit of throwing stones across the fence at his windows when he plays his stereo loudly.

To ease negotiations, he and I go to the pub and nut out an agreement. But my wife has told me, “Make sure you tell him he can’t play any kind of music after dark!” Similarly, his wife's instruction is: “Tell him not to bang the fence with a stick when we are having parties, either!”

At first each of us is horrified at the other's conditions.

So we talk it over. In the end, I agree that classical music is OK after dark, but no heavy metal. He agrees that I can bang the fence up to three times in an hour if he runs the stereo too loudly. That is, he agrees to cede sovereignty to some extent over music, and I agree to cede sovereignty to some extent in respect of banging the fence as well of as throwing stones.

But I certainly have to go home and get my wife’s agreement before we all shake hands over the fence, and my neighbour will need to sell the final agreement at home, too.

Final comments
Monckton is a peer, and therefore a member of the House of Lords. He should have some idea of how Government works. If he doesn’t, he has no right to go about, claiming expertise; if he does, he is mischievous to make these statements.

Personally, looking at what he has said, I think he is pitching propaganda to the US's strong representation of dispensational fundamentalists, many of whom are convinced of the impending implementation of a single world Government. While I share some of their beliefs, I have to add that, for a variety of reasons not worth going into here, they are particularly vulnerable to Monckton's kind of misinformation.

It is one thing to dispute the validity of climate change science; it is another to use misinformation and to manipulate paranoia in order to gain political support.