Painting Fakes

One of the things I've been doing over the past few months is reading some of the books that have been sitting untouched on my shelves for a long time. A while ago, a friend passed on a copy of a book called Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views on Economics,  published by the evangelical publishing house Inter-Varsity Press back in 1984.  It had been sitting on her shelf for a long time, and has been sitting on mine for the past year or two.   Back on the 1980s IVP published a number of 'four views' titles, designed to present readers with some alternative Christian views on contentious subjects.  This one is edited by Robert G. Clouse, with contributions by Gary North, William E Deihl, Art Gish and John Gladwin.  Each contributor contributes a lead essay outlining their viewpoint on the topic - these are around 30 pages each - and then provides a brief response to the other three.  North is touted as representing 'Free Market Capitalism' , Deihl's view is l

I've been writing about human rights, in the light of Australia's debate about religious freedom and the Government's proposed Religious Freedom Bill.  In the first post I had a look at the controversy over Israel Folau's infamous meme.  In the second I provide a beginners guide to the international covenants which provide the basis for human rights legislation and the question of what happens when rights collide.  In the third I provided a quick analysis of  the proposed Australian legislation.  To conclude I'd like to share some thoughts on how Christians should approach human rights. Christians often make the claim that the idea of human rights is founded in a Christian understanding of humanity.  The Centre for Public Christianity's documentary For the Love of God provides a good example .  Christians adopted the Jewish idea that humans are made in the image of God, and this was profoundly countercultural in the Roman Empire where human worth was judge

So, in Part 1 of this series I discussed the religious dimensions of the Israel Folau case, and in Part 2 I provided a summary of how international human rights treaties frame religious and other freedoms.  Now, onto the current Australian legislation.  The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Christian Porter, released the government's draft Religious Discrimination Bill at the end of August 2019, with a consultation period of a little over a month (ending October 2). The drive to legislate for religious freedom gained pace during the process of legalising same sex marriage, and is a kind of compensation to conservative religious people for losing that battle. In the wake of that process the government established a Religious Freedom Review led by former Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock.  This review found that there is no particular immediate threat to religious freedom in Australia. The Panel also heard that, as a whole, Australians generally enjoy religious freedom. Most st

In my previous post I introduced the question of religious freedom and discussed Israel Folau's case from the point of view of Christian teaching.  Now, on to the heart of the matter. Whether or not Israel Folau has accurately represented the Christian faith, he has clearly presented his own deeply held personal belief. So much so that he has refused any kind of compromise. He is not prepared to make any kind of apology, even a half-hearted one, nor to take down the post, because to do so would go against his own conscience. So it is arguable that his religious freedom is being infringed.  This is the argument he appears set to make in his potentially eye-wateringly expensive crowd-funded legal challenge. So how should we view this claim? To assess it properly we need to think about how human rights work. This is rather complex in Australian law because our human rights legislation is very piecemeal, split across various State and Commonwealth statutes that operate in various di

Our newly re-elected Commonwealth Government has introduced new legislation to protect religious freedom.  It is not really clear that we need it (in what ways is religious practice currently restricted?) but there are a number of stalking horses in the debate, like whether Christian schools are free to sack gay teachers, whether preachers can say strong anti-Islamic or anti-gay things in public, and whether bakers can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes.  Bigger and noisier than all of these is the Israel Folau affair. All this kind of turns up the heat on religious freedom without necessarily providing much light, so I thought I'd use the Folau business as a way in to talking about the wider question of religious freedom in Australia and how we might approach it sensibly. First of all, by way of clearing the decks, I'd like to address the question of the relationship between Israel's pronouncement and Christianity. For those living under a rock (or perhaps, living i

In the wake of the marriage survey and parliamentary vote with its 'freedom of religion' shenanigans, it has become a bit of a thing for Christians to talk about how out of step our society is with the Christian faith.  Conservative Christians are now battening down the hatches in readiness for attacks on their religious freedom, which may possibly take the form of being forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Of course the Christian faith itself is a diverse thing.  I can hardly speak for the Christian faith as a whole.  All I can do is tell you what I think it means.  Still, there are plenty of Christians who, like me, think opposition to same sex marriage was a mistake.  Even some who were uncomfortable with same sex marriage were not fans of the Coalition for Marriage's homophobic TV campaign. Still, I think there is something in the idea that both our society, and much of the church, is out of step with a Christian view of what society ought to be - the Kingd