Brian Baxter presents short pieces here on a regular basis.
Responses to this page are welcome, and we will publish responses of interest, whether you agree or disagree with our views.
Posted 22-Jul-07, 10.30pm
Rev Dr Peter Barnes
Rev Dr Peter Barnes has been a strong advocate of Religious Right causes for many years now. He holds down jobs at the Revesby (NSW) Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Theological Centre and spends some of his spare time supporting Rev Fred Nile's enterprises such as the Festival of Light and the Family World News (FWN) monthly journal.
Barnes strongly favours the physical punishment of children - 'part of God's plan to deliver souls from hell', according to him (FWN, Mar. 1997, 9) - and is adamant that wives should 'submit' themselves to their husbands (FWN Mar. 2003, 6). As for homosexuals, well:
The real world of the typical homosexual is a combination of the Sleaze Ball and terrible loneliness ... [Homosexuals] are sad and alienated personalities. Homosexual relationships are the ultimate in counterfeit relationships. ('Homosexual marriages', FWN, Apr. 2004, 1)Having been so impressed by Peter's warm, loving, Christian attitudes over the years, I looked forward to reading his article entitled 'Who'd be a Fundamentalist?' in the July 2007 issue of FWN (p.10). My eye was immediately caught by his assertion that:
... Historically, therefore, 'fundamentalist' really only refers to a Christian. A person who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, for example, is not a Christian. To the fundamentalist, a liberal Christian was no Christian at all.Now, Barnes' switching of tenses here left me in some doubt as to whether he considers himself a fundamentalist or not. However, towards the end of his piece he began to take the Calvinist, and specifically anti-Pentecostalist line that we associate with good Presbyterians:
... [F]undamentalism did become increasingly linked to a certain brand of Protestantism which owed very little to the Reformation of the 16th century. [Brian Houston, are your ears burning?] It became linked to a kind of vaudeville presentation of the gospel in some places, legalistic rules to replace God's law, attempts at picking the date of the Second Coming, and manipulative evangelism. [Glass of water for Mr Houston.] A practice like snake-handling was even regarded in some circles as a fundamental proof that one possessed true faith ...In his final paragraph, Barnes lays his cards on the table:
Well, am I a fundamentalist? Is it a badge of honour or a term of derision? In its historic sense, any evangelical Christian is a fundamentalist.Ah, so Barnes probably does believe that 'a liberal Christian is no Christian at all'!
Do I believe the Bible is God's inerrant Word? Yes, I do. Do I believe that Christ will come again? Yes, I do. Do I believe that he will reign for a thousand years from Jerusalem? No, I do not.Well, if Barnes chooses to reject a perfectly straightforward reading of Revelation, it's his neck, not mine. Be that as it may, he succumbs to meaningless generality in his concluding line:
A better approach [than terming oneself a fundamentalist] would be to claim to be a Christian resting on the perfect work of the perfect Lord revealed in His perfect Word.Peter, having just contradicted a literal reading of Revelation, you're in no position to make glib assertions about God's 'perfect Word', but we'll let that pass as I want to return to one of your earlier statements.
Readers will not be surprised to learn that, like many conservative Presbyterians, Barnes is a creationist. Indeed, his church at Revesby will shortly play host to Philip Bell from the UK branch of Creation Ministries International (top right-hand corner). In his FWN article, Barnes makes this claim:
The modern film 'Inherit the Wind' mocks the fundamentalists in an inaccurate way and ignores inconvenient facts, such as the evolutionists' belief in Nebraska Man, despite the fact that he turned out to be only the tooth of an extinct pig!This tale has been spread around for years by creationists from Duane Gish to Jack T. Chick, but here's the full story from Mark Isaak's (2007) The Counter-Creationism Handbook (104):
The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were sceptical that it even belonged to a primate ...So from a scientific viewpoint, 'Nebraska Man' never moved beyond an early hypothetical stage. As Isaak concludes:
Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of [the tooth] to several other experts. Scientists were initially sceptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.It's worth adding that the 'life' of Nebraska Man was very short - roughly five years from description of the tooth in 1922 to its rejection in the journal Science in 1927; see also www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
And yet here we have Rev Dr Peter Barnes talking about 'the evolutionists' belief in Nebraska Man' some 80 years after science categorically disposed of this hypothesis.
Kind of careless, to say the least.
Posted 12-Jul-07, 6.30pm
Ewan McDonald
You might like to know some more about the people who support Bill Muehlenberg on his CultureWatch site, and even occasionally perform the difficult feat of outflanking him on the right.
I won't bother for the moment with Jonathan Sarfati and Tas Walker, both of whom are senior staffers at Creation Ministries International (CMI), Australia's leading Young Earth Creationist (YEC) group. Brief (and glowing) biographies are available for both of these gentlemen at the CMI site. Muehlenberg is uncharacteristically coy when it comes to defining his own position on creationism (YEC, Old Earth Creationist, Intelligent Design supporter etc.), but YECs like Sarfati and Walker are among his favourite people.
Ewan McDonald is an outspoken adherent of the 'biblical worldview' espoused by Muehlenberg and frequently contributes supportive comments to the latter's blog items. McDonald is a former President of the Victorian Division of the Young National Party, a post he evidently held around the mid-1990s. During this time, the ultra-conservative Australian League of Rights saw fit to publish one of his media releases on gun controls in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre:
With the rejection by Mr Howard of the option to crimp the magazines of self-loading and pump-action shotguns, I think it is not an exaggeration to say that the new gun laws are probably more draconian than we should have expected had the Keating Government been still in power. (On Target, 9 Aug. 1996)McDonald was rather quiet for some years after this, but suddenly re-emerged around 2005-6. A brief biographical entry that appeared on the Christian Witness Ministries site in 2005 described him as a farmer at Timmering in northern Victoria. By this time he had married and had two young children. His interests included politics, philosophy and 'the creation/evolution controversy'. He had also developed an interest in 'biblical worldview studies', another way of saying 'Christian dominion theology', whereby nations should conform themselves to some concept of biblical law. This bio also noted that McDonald had formerly attended the Kyabram Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) church.
McDonald began contributing comments to Muehlenberg's site in mid-2006, taking a strong YEC and general dominionist line right from the start, asserting that:
Christians [must not] be selective in which 'biblical standards' we should be prepared to defend.The problem with 'biblical standards' is that no two people seem to agree on what they are, but anyway Ewan now felt strongly enough about the whole thing to run for Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party (CDP) in the November 2006 Victorian state election. He contested the Legislative Council seat of Northern Region, and a fuller biography was now forthcoming. McDonald's assessment of himself was highly illuminating:
(17 Jun. 2006, 'comment on Evangelical Alliance paper')
A self-confessed 'no nonsense conservative', Ewan believes in a separation of the institutions of church and state, but that does not mean Christian morality should be excised from the laws of the state. Ewan believes the majority of problems facing Australia stem from the fact that over several decades the atheistic worldview of secular humanism has all but replaced the biblical Christian worldview in Australian society ... As Ewan says, 'Secular humanism has become the unofficial religion of the state.'McDonald has now repeated the 'Humanism is a religion' mantra on many occasions, but it suits his self-image perfectly:
Ewan has an unorthodox approach to politics - rather than trying to be popular, he is only interested in doing what is right. As a member of Right to Life Australia, Ewan is strongly committed to opposing abortion in all its forms and considers abortion to be the most serious issue facing our state and nation.He concludes this bio by listing his 'diverse range of interests, from shooting to philosophy and theology', although he omits to tell us which one he prefers. Sadly, second position on the CDP ticket is not the ideal place from which to win a parliamentary seat, and Ewan scored 62 votes or 0.02% of the total cast. (The CDP total in this electorate was about 0.5%, rather less than the party usually registers.)
(www.cdp.org.au/vic/CDPVicEwanMcDonaldProfile.htm)
In a CDP press release issued prior to the election, the party announced its intention to ban all abortions 'with the possible exception being those rare instances when the physical life [sic] of the mother is judged to be at risk if a pregnancy were to be continued'. McDonald elaborated thus:
Unlike many of those who favour abortion on demand, I reject the belief that humankind evolved from primitive ape-like creatures. As a Christian party we believe that men and women were created in the image of God[; therefore] human life is sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. ('Christian Democratic Party to Contest November State Election', undated media release)So if you're reading Ewan McDonald's comments on Bill Muehlenberg's site, don't imagine that he's just your average punter having his two bobs' worth. Christian Democratic Party, Right to Life Australia, Young Earth Creationist, Pentecostal, enthusiastic shooter, proud possessor of a 'biblical worldview' - pretty much the full hand, really.
Posted 06-Jul-07, 11:50am
The sperm that made Jesus
Yesterday I came across an old article by Dr Harrold Steward of Adelaide. Entitled 'God in Embryo' and appearing in the evangelical journal New Life of 1 Mar. 1984, the article points out that Jesus' conception was unlike any other in history:
The womb, or uterus, is not the normal site for conception, but rather the ovarian tube.Steward proceeded from a discussion of the unusual to some speculation about the stupendous:
There are two views concerning the miraculous conception of our Lord within Mary.Now, we're well and truly inside the realm of the imagination, right? But where in all this is the sperm cell? Don't you want a clear explanation of exactly how the Holy Spirit inserted the necessary genetic information into Mary's egg? Did a holy sperm cell just suddenly appear, and if so, where were its atoms immediately before they were suddenly constituted as a sperm? As for Mary's 'recessive characteristics', might this mean that Jesus' face more closely resembled that of his father? Enough!
The first is that Mary's ovum (egg cell) was fertilised by the Holy Spirit. The divine characteristics in the fertilised cell dominated over Mary's recessive characteristics. The conception was solely and predominantly of God.
The second view [says that] God the Father claimed a new body so that His Son would be a perfect Man in His flesh, blood and bones. This view suggests that the Father implanted a new egg cell in the uterus of Mary. The human body of our Lord Jesus Christ was the developing life in the womb. Our beloved Lord had no corruption or taint of sin's decay. There was no process of pathology in His perfection, hence a new egg cell quickened to life by the Holy Spirit.Steward then blots his copybook as far as Catholics are concerned by claiming that Mary ('ever-virgin', according to Catholic doctrine):
... lay alongside her husband, Joseph, their love unfulfilled until consummated 40 days following Jesus' birth.So this second view, if I understand it correctly, does away with the Marian ovum altogether, and places a miraculously-formed zygote (the Father's 'new body'?) into Mary's womb. To my mind, this merely replaces one problem with another, but I'll leave you to sort it all out.
I'm more interested in the question of where 'views' like those described above leave the Christian dominionist/Reconstructionist idea about 'presuppositions'. Briefly, an essential part of the dominionist critique of secular humanism is that we're too blocked (or misled by Satan) to be able to conceive of miracles like the Virgin Birth occurring. The way they often put it is that our 'commitment to philosophical naturalism/materialism' means that we 'presuppose' that miracles simply cannot occur. Most Australian Religious Right leaders promote this viewpoint, although some are more explicit about it than others.
Some humanists and skeptics respond to this claim by asking how the 'miracles' are supposed to have occurred. With regard to some stories such as the Virgin Conception hypotheses outlined above, humanists may also point out that Christians themselves cannot agree exactly how the event took place e.g. via a Holy Spirit 'sperm' or a directly-created zygote.
This sort of response will not concern a dominionist like Jonathan Sarfati or Bill Muehlenberg, as they simply reply that the humanist has confirmed their analysis: 'See, you've just admitted that your mind is closed to the possibility of a genuine, non-natural, inexplicable, divine miracle. You've presupposed that the Virgin Birth simply could not have occurred'.
A more fruitful line of argument might go something like this:
OK, so I'm now opening myself up to supernatural explanations of events like the Virgin Conception and Birth. But where do I draw the line? After all, the supernatural is a very big place, fairly bulging with all sorts of gods and demons, not to mention angels, fairies and the whole Hogwarts mob. What enables me to distinguish 'good' supernatural from 'bad' supernatural, and either of them from pure imagination?Now, a wise Christian will simply reply that you should pray for God's grace in helping you understand the answer to this question. This is partly satisfactory for both sides, as it leaves the Christian floating in his untouchable supernaturalism, while the humanist can (correctly, in my view) dismiss the response as an evasion.
But we are not dealing with wise Christians. Dominionists will immediately fall into the trap of giving you a naturalist/materialist type of answer e.g.:
There is unchallengeable evidence for the existence of Jesus and the authenticity and inerrancy of the Bible. Biblical Christianity is thus the only valid source of information about the supernatural.OK, if they want to fight on our ground, that's just fine. There's lots of evidence that the Bible is an unreliable source, both historically and in terms of the moral values it teaches. In the washup, dominionists are revealed as being just as dependent on naturalistic arguments as humanists are, except that their positions are quickly revealed as threadbare.
But I'm still left wondering where that amazing sperm came from.
Posted 27-Jun-07, 9.45pm
'Children, prepare for torture'
The evangelical Christians who run New Life magazine probably consider themselves a highly moral group of people. After all, they spend much of their time fulminating against abortion rights, gay and lesbian rights, feminists, 'evolutionists', supporters of voluntary euthanasia and similar miscreants. Surely they themselves are 'right with God'.
As with a number of conservative Christian journals, you can tell a lot about the core beliefs of the publishers and editors by reading the children's pages. Here, the organisation's basic ideas are distilled to their essence, untrammelled by the bodyguard of ... I was going to say 'nuances', but let's say 'lies' instead ... that accompany similar articles written for adult consumption.
New Life's 'Hotshots' children's page is provided by the Scripture Union (for kids '8 and up') and their offering for 1 Mar. 2007 was a little story entitled 'A mean man'. Two children are discussing a parable of Jesus that they have just read:
'That was a good story about the man who owed 50 million silver coins', said Reuben. 'I like the ending anyway. That was so cool of the king to say he didn't have to pay!'
'That's not really the end of the story', said Kate. 'Let's read it.'
Matthew 18:28-35:
'As the official [whose debt had just been forgiven by the king] was leaving ...'
OK, time out for a moment. 'Official', eh? How come my ancient copy of the King James Version (KJV) says 'servant', while a number of versions I found on the Web say 'slave'? I'm telling you, folks, you have to watch these guys like hawks. Back to Jesus' parable:
... he happened to meet another official, who owed him a hundred silver coins. So he grabbed the man by the throat. He started choking him and said, 'Pay me what you owe!' The man got down on his knees and began begging [for time to pay] ... But the first official refused to have pity. Instead, he went and had the other official put in jail until he could pay what he owed.
Some other 'officials' find out what has happened and report the matter to the king.
The king called the first official back in and said, 'You're an evil man! When you begged for mercy, I said you did not have to pay back a cent. Don't you think you should show pity to someone else, as I did to you?
Now things come to the crunch.
The king was so angry that he ordered the official to be tortured until he could pay back everything he owed.
And then Jesus concludes:
That is how my Father in heaven will treat you, if you don't forgive each of my followers with all your heart.
Now, there are a number of intriguing things about this story, sometimes called the Parable of the Unjust Steward. (In the Bible, this story comes right after the much better-known tale in which Jesus tells Peter that you should forgive people 'seventy times seven' - something which, in the parable, God himself seems disinclined to do!) I think the Hotshots story helps explain why some Christians are constantly rabbiting on about the absolute necessity of forgiving those who sin against you. Anyone who took this little anecdote to heart would be scared stiff of doing anything else! In other words, Christians who say they 'forgive' you are actually in the business of quietly saving their own skin.
But, to return to my theme, what about the effect on the children reading this impossibly confused fable, its effect made even more destructive by the fact that it purports to promote a genuine virtue i.e. that of mercy?
At the end of the passage from Matthew, children are asked the following question:
Think carefully about this Bible reading. What do you learn about God from this story?
Well, first I learnt that God approves of, and apparently practises torture. There seems no doubt that 'torture' is a correct translation. The KJV (beloved of evangelicals) says 'tormentors', which is pretty close, while the Revised Standard Version hedges its bets with 'jailers' in the main text, but with a notation saying, 'In Greek: "torturers"'.
Secondly, I learnt that God administers disproportionately severe punishments. I don't forgive somebody wholeheartedly? He has me tortured, possibly forever. It follows that he is an unjust deity.
Thirdly, I'm going to worry for the rest of my life about whether I've forgiven 'with all my heart' those who have wronged me. Even if they're not God's 'followers' when they trespass against me, they might be converted at any time and then I'll be up the creek. How will I ever know whether I've successfully despatched every little trace of resentment to God's satisfaction?
Seriously, what sort of a story is this to tell to young children? And what sort of people would spread it far and wide on the children's page of their magazine?
Posted 9-Mar-07, 8.25pm
Australian Christian Values Checklist - 2007 NSW State Election
An 'Australian Christian Values Checklist' has been published by a number of Religious Right groups in order to assist prospective voters at the NSW state election to be held on 24 March 2007.
The introduction to this checklist claims that:
In the 2001 census, 68% [of] Australians identified themselves as Christians. This summary of the positions of major parties on issues of concern to Christians is provided as a service to the Christian community.This statement disingenuously implies that 68% of Australians support an extensive Religious Right political program involving, for example, a crackdown on abortion, prohibition of embryonic stem-cell research and voluntary euthanasia, and the introduction of a draconian censorship system. As you can see, the only parties who allegedly support a majority of these positions are the National Party (by a whisker) and Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party, which promotes all 27 listed policies.
We should pay special attention to the small print below the checklist. This tells us that the list was published on 27 February 2007 by the Australian Christian Values Institute in association with Salt Shakers and several other organisations. Of these groups, the National Alliance of Christian Leaders, Catch the Fire Ministries, Life Ministries WA and the Australian Federation for the Family (as well as Salt Shakers) are summarised in the 'Religious Right Groups' page on this site.
The remaining bodies are CultureWatch, which is Bill Muehlenberg's website (see Brian's Blog 5-25 Oct 2006); the Australian Indigenous Prayer Network, closely associated with the (ultra-Pentecostal) Australian Prayer Network; the National Marriage Coalition, a consortium of the Australian Christian Lobby, the Australian Family Association and the Fatherhood Foundation (all summarised on our 'Religious Right Groups' page) - in 2004, this body helped push through the federal anti-same-sex marriage legislation, and then became quiescent; and the Integrity Alliance, another consortium, the principal members of which are the Fatherhood Foundation and the Australian Family Association.
The checklist is authorised by Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation, National Marriage Council and Integrity Alliance - and apparently of the Australian Christian Values Institute as well (which is based, like Warwick, in Wollongong NSW).
So I think what we have here is a handful of people claiming to represent the political interests and viewpoints of 'Australian Christians', who in turn are purported to constitute 68% of the Australian population. Those responsible for this arrant nonsense include Warwick Marsh, Peter and Jenny Stokes of Salt Shakers and perhaps two or three others. The main beneficiary of the checklist is clearly Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party, although the party's name is conspicuously absent from the list of supporters.
It's worth noting that the slightly more moderate Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) seems less than keen on this checklist and in fact disagrees with at least one of the positions stated there i.e. '10. Oppose civil unions and relationship registers for same-sex couples.' While it strongly opposes same-sex civil unions, the ACL in fact favours the idea of Tasmanian-style relationship registers.
Posted 24-Feb-07, 7.30pm
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion - three reviews
You may not have caught up with all the evangelical Christian and/or creationist reviews of Richard Dawkins' excellent book The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006). Strangely enough, all of these reviewers were less than impressed with what Dawkins had to say, and expressed themselves accordingly.
Let's start with conservative Presbyterian Barney Zwartz, the Melbourne Age's religious affairs editor - The God Delusion:
As a former philosophy tutor, I would have hated to have Richard Dawkins in my class. Most tutors have met his sort: the loud, opinionated, supercilious student who shouts down other views without actually listening, who stands in awe of his own cleverness when everyone else can see that it is simply an immature over-confidence.Nice of you to nail your colours to the mast, Barney, this being your opening paragraph and all. What's your problem with Dawkins?
... [W]hen it comes to religion he is simply a bigot. He is on a relentless crusade against religion in any form, but cannot see that his own scientistic materialism is as much a dogmatic form of fundamentalist faith as those he despises.Yes, most of the hostile reviewers say something like this. Perhaps they didn't read as far as p.283 where Dawkins makes a statement echoing similar affirmations made by Carl Sagan, James Randi and other sceptics and humanists down the ages:
We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it.Dawkins goes on to affirm that 'No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that'. As someone who has studied this area closely for a long time now, I'd have to agree with him. I can never remember a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist writer saying, 'Well, I could be completely wrong about my basic beliefs, of course, and if stronger evidence were to emerge, I'd happily change my mind.' No conservative evangelical could afford to say this, as the mental reservation it implies would throw his or her salvation into doubt.
Zwartz concedes that Dawkins can be 'lively, entertaining and witty', but claims that he often argues in a 'slipshod or superficial' way; that some of his philosophical arguments are 'spectacularly inept' (Zwartz doesn't say how), and:
... [t]hat same capacity for facile undergraduate muddle-headedness emerges when he considers the Gospels ... Dawkins is so dismissive and often so skewed or superficial that he doesn't make much contact with Christians like me.Argument by insult is also the stock-in-trade of Philip Bell, spokesman for Creation Ministries International - UK:
[T]his book is certainly not a disinterested search for truth and is devoid of any careful weighing of evidence, for and against [Dawkins'] thesis. Rather, it is this author's most polemical work to date, that of a man driven by an unholy zeal to depose the God he claims to disbelieve in but transparently hates.Dawkins is 'offensive and blasphemous', spewing forth 'unsubstantiated claims and specious arguments' which are full of 'fatal flaws'. Bell deplores Dawkins' 'ranting ways' and exclaims that 'the man's arrogance is palpable'. Dawkins is 'utterly dogmatic', sophomoric and crassly hypocritical. Many of the book's assertions are 'without a shred of supporting evidence and amount to so much bluff and bluster'. Dawkins also draws on the work of 'embittered apostate charlatans', whose ideas can apparently be ignored on that account alone - this is a gorgeous example of the type of ad hominem argument perfected by Bell's Australian colleague, Jonathan Sarfati.
Further, Dawkins suffers from 'theological illiteracy' (this charge seems positively grotesque, coming as it does from the pen of a Young Earth Creationist); and the pages of The God Delusion smack of 'calculated deceit'. Indeed, 'Dawkins truly lives up to the name "A Devil's Chaplain"'.
Later in his tirade, Bell actually concedes that '... Dawkins does understand Christianity - much better than many ordinary Christians do', but that 'he wilfully rejects it'. He has 'a bleak, atheistic take on life' (in fact, Dawkins' 'take' on life is cheerful and optimistic) and the only redeeming feature of his book is that it shows up non-creationist Christians for the pathetic compromisers they are.
Finally, we have a two-part review of Dawkins that Bill Muehlenberg posted on his CultureWatch site -
A Review Of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Part 1
A Review Of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Part 2
When I say 'review', it's really a blood-curdling howl of impotent rage, quite bizarre even by Muehlenbergian standards. What do you make of something like this?
Indeed, there are atheists and there are atheists. The garden variety don't like religion, don't like God and don't like people who do. Then there is the especially hard-core variety. These are atheists who are on a mission, an evangelistic crusade to save the world from religion ... Such atheists have every bit as much zeal and fanaticism in their secular jihad as a religious person ever will. Richard Dawkins is a classic example of the atheist stormtrooper.Dawkins 'spew(s) forth anti-religious bigotry and animosity'. For him, 'religion is the source of all evil'. He displays 'overwhelming arrogance, pomposity and self-assuredness' and is just plain nasty, full of bile, venom, bitterness and rancour.
Theologically, Dawkins is 'sophomoric' and 'his criticisms would not pass a Theology 101 exam', while his 'superficial assault on the gospels [is] wrong on almost every count'; '[y]et Dawkins persists in his kindergarten criticism', using 'juvenile arguments and sloppy scholarship'. (Note the persistent efforts to infantilise Dawkins, an approach common to many religious enthusiasts when stalking their prey.) Worse still, Dawkins 'maligns creationists'. In fact, '[h]e makes so many major blunders ... that one doesn't know where to begin.'
His arguments are simply shallow and unconvincing. They are also poorly argued ... [They] tell us more about his own twisted temperament and his anti-Christian bigotry.Part 2 of Muehlenberg's review is simply an extension of Part 1, with a few Olympian pronouncements thrown in for good measure. One I especially liked was:
... [T]he scientific enterprise is [similar to religion in that it is] also characterised by faith commitment. There are all kinds of unproven assumptions and presuppositions which may or may not be testable.How enlightening! Anyway, Dawkins' 'hatred of religion':
... is so strong that he is quite happy to generalise, stereotype and paint everyone with his broad brush ... [We should question the] many spurious and fanciful assumptions and claims made by Dawkins.Muehlenberg's conclusion is a pip:
... Suffice it to say, [this book] has left an unpleasant taste in this reader's mouth ... The author's over-reliance on ad hominem [arguments], name-calling, red herrings, straw men, and selective use of evidence makes this book unconvincing at best and repellent at worst ... [The book] is just too doctrinaire, arrogant, intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and full of pomposity and venom.Three reviews; three very scared guys.
Posted 15-Feb-07, 10:30pm
Can Danny Nalliah raise the dead?
I've always had a special interest in evangelical pastors who claim to be able to raise the dead. I've written one article on this topic and I was starting to organise the material for a second piece when I came across this story in Pastor Danny Nalliah's autobiography Worship Under the Sword (5th ed. 2005). Nalliah, who was born in Sri Lanka, heads a Melbourne Pentecostal group called Catch the Fire Ministries (CTFM) and the following was one of his early experiences:
I was informed of a girl in our factory that had fallen seriously ill. The next thing I knew, I was in this girl's house ... She was lying on a bed, there was no movement at all, her eyes were open, but the black portion of the eyeball had gone in ... Then the village doctor came in and pronounced her deceased ... Then the Holy Ghost told me, 'Command this girl to come back to life, in the name of Jesus' ... at once, I commanded the demon of death to come out in the name of Jesus, and the people [assembled in the room] looked at me in amazement. As I finished the girl gave out a scream, 'Hoooo, hoooo', she said, as she shook her head left to right. Her hair started blowing up, just as if she had a fan behind her head. All the people sitting and crying around her jumped up with fear. I ordered them all out of the place. Not all of them knew Jesus and I knew that the demon would go into one of them if they stayed ... I continued commanding the demon of death to come out, in the name of Jesus. The girl continued to hoot and struggle, but after about four or five minutes I shouted, 'Get out and get up in the name of Jesus'. The girl got up and sat down ... That day the whole crowd bowed down to Jesus. (pp.25-6)Being a modest sort of chap, Danny disclaims direct responsibility for the miracles he performs and gives all the credit to God. This didn't stop his Pentecostal brethren in Sri Lanka from holding him in awe:
I was nicknamed '3Ds' (DDD) in my church, and that stood for 'Demon Delivering Danny'. Oh, praise God, I enjoy taking on the devil ... In my ministry I have encountered many demon-possessed people and by the power of the Blood of the Lamb, every one of them was delivered. (23)Incidents like the next one were a dime a dozen for DDD. When a boy turned up at his doorstep complaining that his sister was possessed 'and has been turning the house upside down the whole night', Danny leapt straight into action:
As I entered the house I could not see her but from inside her room she started shouting, 'What are you doing here? Get out of my house ...' With my lips whispering, 'In the name of Jesus', I started towards the room. As I entered the room, the devil knew that his party was over ... I shouted, 'In the name of Jesus, you demon get out of this life and this house right now.' Within two or three minutes, she was delivered by the mighty power of Jesus. (24)But this is chicken feed compared with Danny's exploits a few years later in Saudi Arabia:
I was called to pray for a man who was totally paralysed ... His whole right side had stopped functioning completely ... [Hmm. 'Totally paralysed' or just 'right side'?] ... I commanded in the name of Jesus that the paralytic spirit come out. I pronounced life back into this body in fullness. Then I started hearing someone shouting hallelujah ... I opened my eyes and realised it was the [paralysed] man, who [previously] could not speak. He was shouting hallelujah and no one could stop him ... Within 24 hours this man was totally healed and got out of bed ... The news of the healing of this man spread all over the Middle East. (36-8)Oh, and just as an afterthought:
Another man, who was British, who had a brain tumour and [needed] prayer, called me when he heard the news. Praise God, when I prayed, the lord healed him. (38)Death, paralysis, brain tumours - is there anything our boy can't handle?
Evidently not, as he managed to heal a case of total deafness while visiting Washington DC in 1998 (73) and another case of paralysis in Indonesia a few years later: 'She was walking, talking and completely healed by the power of God'. (86-7) When Danny visited Sri Lanka in 2002 (having moved to Australia in 1997), a man 'totally blind for 17 years' was brought to him:
Well, Glory to God, I placed my thumbs on his eyes and rebuked the blind spirit and claimed healing in the Name of Jesus. I finished praying and took my hands off. Instantly the man's eyes opened up and he started shouting, 'I can see, I can see!' He then grabbed my tie and started telling me all the different colours on my tie ... (CTFM Newsletter, Sept. 2002, 2)On a later visit to Sri Lanka, Danny succeeding in 'healing' another tumour, having anointed the patient's head with oil, prayed, and diagnosed ... witchcraft. This healing would have been even more impressive had the tumour not already been removed by surgery. (CTFM Newsletter, Jul. 2006, 3)
Now, some of you may be tempted to dismiss Danny's claims as a lot of piffle, while others might entertain even darker suspicions about our hero. Please don't go down this perilous path, as, you see, Danny is obviously one of the Lord's 'anointed' (this literally means 'smeared with oil', a term I don't find especially problematic when applied to Danny), and if you go round bagging the Lord's anointed - hoo, boy, are you in trouble! Danny specifically warns against the dangerous practice of 'touching the anointed' (see pp.51-4) and I'm sure we're all very grateful for his concern.
Leaders of the Federal Coalition parties seem anxious to endorse Pastor Danny's brand of Christianity. Prime Minister John Howard recently congratulated CTFM for bringing Christians together at Festival Hall in Melbourne on Australia Day, while:
... Federal Treasurer Peter Costello wrote a letter of support to Pastor Nalliah during his legal battle [over an alleged breach of Victoria's religious vilification law], and Deputy PM Mark Vaile, former Deputy PM John Anderson and former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth have made speeches to the group. (Nassim Khadem 'PM defends "force for good" Christian message', Melbourne Age, 20 Jan. 2007)So who are we to doubt?
Posted 3-Feb-07, 11:30pm
Right to Life in action
Margaret Tighe's Right to Life Australia (RTLA) is still practising 'punishment politics'. Aspiring politicians can have conservative views on just about every topic under the sun, but if they're a shade wobbly on 'life' issues, there's a good chance that RTLA will mount a campaign against them.
Here's an example of their work, taken from the November 2006 Victorian state election:
In Kilsyth the local Member was Dymphna Beard from the [Australian Labor Party]. Dymphna's membership on [pro-choice] Emily's List and her vote in favour of destructive embryo research made it important for us to defeat her candidacy. She is no longer a Member of Parliament.So how exactly did they go about helping defeat Beard?
Right to Life letterboxed the electorate twice, with the help of over 40 volunteers. Our members in the area held an electorate meeting and told their church networks about Dymphna's support for abortion.Most RTLA members consider themselves good Catholics, but in Kilsyth they ran into a bit of a snag.
Unfortunately, Dymphna received the support of her local Parish Priest during the election campaign. The Parish Priest at St Peter Julian Eynard's parish attacked Right to Life for campaigning against the pro-abortion Dymphna. Until our campaign got into full swing, Dymphna was, extraordinarily, an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and Parish Councillor ... ('Victorian Election - Some Good News for Right to Life!', RTLA News, Jan. 2007, 2)On the whole, this was a very poor election for Right to Life, with Labor winning a large majority in the Lower House and the pro-choice Greens securing an effective balance of power in the Upper House. There were many factors at work in the defeat of Dymphna Beard and other pro-choice candidates, but RTLA campaigning should always be taken into account and specifically opposed and counterbalanced by pro-choice and voluntary euthanasia organisations.
Although they seem to have less influence than at state level, RTLA also keeps a close eye on the speeches and voting records of federal MPs, especially the Catholics. And you wouldn't credit it, but some of these grubby renegades differ from the RTLA line:
A very disturbing trend to emerge from both the cloning and RU486 ['abortion pill'] debates in Federal Parliament has been anti-life politicians claiming adherence to the Catholic faith. I [presumably RTLA President Margaret Tighe] believe Church leaders should be addressing this public scandal with a degree of urgency.Female MPs who don't deliver the goods receive special castigation:
We have ended up with the spectacle of Senator Claire Moore claiming in a February interview with 'The Age': 'I've been involved in pro-choice groups and women's groups for a long time. I'm a practising Catholic, which is terribly confusing for a lot of people and sometimes confusing for me.' Confusing indeed!Touted future PM Malcolm Turnbull also gets a pasting:
... Teresa Gambaro stood in Parliament on the 4th of December and said, 'As a Roman Catholic, I take my faith and the issues of human life very seriously.' On December 6 Teresa voted for cloning, and voted for the harvesting of aborted baby girls for their eggs.
... Catharine King, conceding in an almost regrettable [sic] tone that she was 'brought up Catholic' comes to the conclusion that abortion, embryo experimentation, foetal farming and cloning are all OK.
He was in the Vatican as part of an official delegation on Palm Sunday. His website proudly beams his association with World Youth Day ..., yet he has used his vote in parliament to support both RU486 and the cloning legislation.And Brendan Nelson, are your ears burning?
... [Nelson] proudly proclaimed during the abortion pill debate to [sic] believe in 'One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' and then voted in favour of RU486, not to mention cloning!Regarding the next miscreant, Tighe becomes downright snaky:
... Warren Snowdon MP said, 'I feel comfortable in my position as a Catholic in being able to support this legislation.' We must ask ourselves, 'How can we make Warren feel less "comfortable" next time he votes for killing innocent human beings?'Brendan Patrick John O'Connor and Joseph Benedict Hockey have their names written out in full, just in case there were any doubts about their antecedents.
Tighe concludes:
A politician cannot reconcile a vote in favour of these abhorrent measures with faith in the Christian Church. They should not be invited to cut the ribbon at school fetes, speak at diocesan conferences, stand on the stage at World Youth Day or take active leadership positions at their parish ... In 1980 Right to Life Australia was instrumental in having a pro-abortion politician disinvited from opening a Catholic school. ('So-Called Catholics Clamour for Cloning', ibid., 3)'Pope Margaret'. Kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
Posted 21-Jan-07, 7:25pm
The Catholicisation of Protestantism
While conservative evangelicals sometimes band together for some common purpose, they are really a collection of warring tribes. This is in the nature of Protestantism, which prizes one's 'personal relationship with God' above all else. If your minister or pastor tells you one thing about Christian doctrine, and you have a bit of a pray about it and decide that he (or sometimes she) is wrong - well, congratulations, you win! This is not much of a recipe for unanimity and helps explain why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations and sects scattered around the place. (For a very funny example of how these and related clashes can work out in practice, have a look at Ken Dempsey's Conflict and Decline: Ministers and laymen in an Australian country town [1983], available in many libraries.)
Evangelical commentator Bill Muehlenberg, formerly of the Catholic-dominated Australian Family Association, writes a lot about sex on his CultureWatch website - . Indeed, if it wasn't for sex, Muslims and atheists, there wouldn't be much on Bill's site at all. Anyway, here's his take on 'the purpose of sex', courtesy of this quote from a Canadian lawyer, Gwen Landolt:
Logically and consistently, once you've opened the door to relationships beyond heterosexual married couples - because of companionship and other benefits - you have to grant the same rights to everybody. You've changed the whole dynamic and purpose of legal marriage, which is procreation. We know that lesbian and homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual married couples, because the purpose of the heterosexual union is of course procreation. That's the only relationship the State has a basic interest in - to promote and encourage the birth of children.'Quite so', says Bill, but in saying this he falls foul of the orthodox evangelical viewpoint in this matter, and even worse, strays into a 'papist' trap. It's not entirely surprising that Bill falls into this error from time to time, as he is one of those Protestants with a strong liking for conservative Catholic social doctrine. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if he converts to Roman Catholicism one of these days.
(Rights and Wrongs in Relationship Recognition - Bill Muehlenberg, 17-Dec-06.)
Anyway, here is the judgment rendered by the formidable conservative evangelical Rev. Dr Ward Powers of Tyndale College, Sydney on one of Bill's heroes, convicted Watergate conspirator Charles Colson. In the evangelical publication New Life of 25 Aug. 2005, Colson argued that 'the purpose of our sexual powers isn't pleasure but procreation'. Colson was reviewing a book by American J. Budziszewski who is associated with the creationist Discovery Institute, who is also a favourite of Bill Muehlenberg's, and who, coincidentally, recently converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism.
Describing Colson's position on the purpose of sex as 'not merely wrong, but dangerously wrong', Powers explained that:
...[ in] presenting the purpose of sex as being procreation (and not pleasure), Colson and [Budziszewski] are proclaiming a Roman Catholic teaching that goes back to when platonism and gnosticism misled the church away from biblical teaching in this field ...Powers then brought out the big guns, in particular a verse of Genesis quoted by Jesus. (Verses of the Old Testament quoted by Jesus - a kind of double whammy - are regarded by evangelicals with much the same degree of awe as poker players regard a straight flush).
In Gen 2:24 (quoted by Jesus in Matt 19:5), God says, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is clearly showing sex as an important constituent of marriage ... There is no mention of procreation in this key verse ...Powers follows up with teachings of the apostle Paul, who:
... discusses sex in marriage in candid detail in 1 Cor 7:2-5, saying that the bodies of husband and wife belong to each other and that they are to fulfil each other's sexual natures and describing failure to do this (verse 5) as 'depriving' or 'robbing' each other ...Powers thinks that the Colson/Budziszewski/Muehlenberg line on sex is potentially disastrous from a practical standpoint:
It is to be carefully noted that in Paul's exposition of married sex there is no mention at all of procreation. Sex in God's purpose is part of the love and bonding (and pleasure) of the married relationship - and these factors are valid reason in themselves for the sexual relationship.
In my ministry in several parishes and three Bible/theological colleges, I have seen repeatedly the deleterious consequences of this dangerous teaching that the purpose of sex is procreation. This teaching has led many people to conclude that sex in marriage is sinful unless you have procreation in view. This is very damaging to normal marital relationships.Muehlenberg has expressed a very 'Catholic' suspicion of contraception on a number of occasions, and should take careful note of Powers' next observation:
This [purpose of sex is procreation] teaching puts a question mark over people having sex after they are too old to have children, or when they have had as many children as they wish. This teaching has caused numerous earnest Christians to question the legitimacy of contraception and birth control when there is nothing in the Bible to suggest wrongdoing in taking steps to prevent conception.Powers concludes that:
This is a very serious matter affecting the marital happiness of many people. Colson's wrong teaching must be strongly rejected. (New Life, 8 Sept. 2005)May I ask conservative evangelicals this friendly question? How long are you prepared to support independent ministries whose long-term result may be the catholicisation of Protestantism?
Posted 02-Jan-07, 10:35pm
Spiritual Darkness and the Satanic Salute
Regular readers of this blog may recall some earlier discussions of 'New Pentecostal' craziness, among them 'Australian Prayer Network: Pentecostal Fortune-Tellers' (16 Jul. 2005). That article looked at the charismatic gift of prophecy while this one deals with kids' clothes, but we're in the same neck of the woods.
Helen Deveraj contributed a piece entitled 'Sheep in Wolf's Clothing' to the December 2006 issue of Salt Shakers Journal (pp.16-17). (Salt Shakers is operated by Baptists heavily influenced by the wilder variety of Pentecostalism). According to Helen:
All may not be what it seems in the clotheswear department. This article deals with my experiences with boyswear and my thoughts about it.Back in 2005 Helen visited Target and bought her son some 'World Industries' and 'Piping Hot' jeans and tops. She was happy with her purchases until she started reading two books called Protecting your Home from Spiritual Darkness and Deliver Us from Evil.
The first of these books was written by 'Apostle' Chuck Pierce (with Rebecca Sytsema) while the second is the work of 'Prophet' Cindy Jacobs. For some background on these individuals, see the Brian's Blog item mentioned above.
Back to Helen Deveraj's article:
After reading these books I gradually became aware that many of the items my son was wearing could be of concern: the World Industries clothing had subtle markings which on closer examination appeared to be pitchforks and devil heads ... Not a good look for a Christian!But worse was to come!
Less subtle was the applique cartoon character performing a satanic salute!Apparently you perform a 'satanic salute' by raising your left arm while holding your long and ring fingers down with your thumb - although it's a bit hard to tell as the cartoon character in the illustration only has three fingers. I tried it a couple of times and my dog barked so maybe there's something in it.
Anyway, Helen tried to get rid of all 'dubious' accoutrements, but without success:
... [T]he jeans studs ha[d] what appear to be devil heads on the inside of the jeans.Rather than have her son wandering about in public with purified jeans around his ankles, Helen binned them and turned her attention to the tops:
The Piping Hot top has dragons on it. I probably would have avoided this purchase if I'd been more familiar with what the Bible says about the dragon. For example, 'The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray' (Revelation 12:9)Next came some footwear:
... [M]y son's green Dunlop Volleys have skulls on the innersole (or soul?) [Helen, this is a particularly bad pun, even for a Salt Shaker!] I wouldn't have purchased these if I was more familiar with biblical references to the skull. It's mentioned in the gospels ... as 'Golgotha, the place of the skull', where Jesus was crucified.Now some people might think: 'Yes, isn't it strange that Jesus happened to be crucified near somewhere called "the place of the skull". Almost looks like something a story-teller might have made up.' But not Helen:
Maybe it's better not to wear something associated with death, when Jesus came to give life.Going through the shoe-rack, Helen found something else to worry about:
My son also had an OMNI brand pair of shoes, which appear to have the 'evil eye' on the back of them.Here's where it starts getting creepy:
Getting back to boys' clothes, in more recent times I've noticed that some boys' clothes have been marked with bears, lions and eagles. Could there be a connection to the beast(s) referred to in Daniel Chapter 7 or Revelation Chapter 13?Well, Helen, I've just remembered an important meeting so I might be moving along ...
New torn clothing is marketed as a 'cool thing'. Is this torn clothing designed to oppose the Bible's 'Rules for Priests'? Priests were not allowed to tear their clothes (Leviticus 21:10). New Testament believers are described as a royal priesthood ... [s]o perhaps we should avoid buying or wearing torn clothes ...Gosh, Helen, is that the time? I really must be going ...
My solution to buying boyswear now is to pray regarding my son's needs prior to going shopping ...Door-handle seems to be stuck ... Oh, here's the key, thank ...
I shop alone to allow for a thorough examination of the clothing from all angles!Very wise. Well, thanks Helen. Don't mind me breaking into a bit of a run as I head for the gate. Bit of exercise, good for the heart ...
Since doing this I have been able to clothe my son in a non-offensive manner ...Bye Helen, byeee ...
Posted 07-Dec-06, 08:45pm
Were 'you' ever a sperm?
As we head for the silly season, I thought you might like this story. Written by Deirdre Moloney and first appearing in Right To Life News of January 1982, I've seen its basic idea repeated in several other articles over the years, but Deirdre did it best.
Ask most anti-choice campaigners when human life begins and they will unhesitatingly reply, 'At conception!' But not all of them. Over to Deirdre:
There has been much speculation as to when life begins, but as far as I know, no one has publicly used the argument of preconceptual consciousness, that is, of the awareness of personhood on the part of the sperm, even before it meets the ovum.Time out for a moment. Deirdre is trying to tell us that a person can know they're a person even before they've collected half the chromosomes necessary to make a person into a person! And the Right to Life Association (RTLA), an organisation consisting mainly of 'good Catholics', was sufficiently impressed by the argument to publish this as a 'straight' article titled '"So ... When Does Life Begin?" - Another View of the Issue'.
When I realised where Deirdre was going, I thought it must be an April Fool's joke, but no. It was printed in January of 1982 and no apologies or objections to the thesis appeared in subsequent issues of RTLA News.
Deirdre explained that she had been led to her conclusions by Dr Frank Lake, 'a devout Anglican and leading English psychiatrist'. Speaking at the Sixth International Transpersonal Psychology Conference at Cowes, Victoria in November 1980, Lake explained that he had been examining drawings done by 'Primal Therapy' patients. He began to wonder whether the drawings might be valid recordings of intra-uterine memories and asked colleagues about this:
To his amazement and joy, several colleagues had been thinking along similar lines for some time ... Then Dr Lake proceeded to illustrate by slides the case-histories of several patients ... proving the origins of some lifelong maladies; BUT, some patients RECORDED THEIR MEMORY OF BEING A SPERM, TRAVELLING UP THE FALLOPIAN TUBE (which Dr Lake calls the 'blastocystic bliss' ...) AND DURING THERAPY SESSIONS, THEY ACTUALLY CRY OUT IN ECSTASY, WITH FULL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR OWN PERSONHOOD - 'OH MAN! THIS IS IT! GOD AND ME! WE'VE GOT IT ALL TOGETHER MAN!'For the sake of brevity, let's ignore Deirdre's questionable grasp of physiology and plough on to the bitter end:
And this is BEFORE the sperm actually enters the uterus to join the ovum. (Deirdre's emphases)
Dr Lake claimed that it is from this subconscious memory of the joy of such intimate union with God that some souls derive their vocation to the contemplative life ...Now here's your Christmas puzzle. Prove her wrong!
So those who claim that life begins at twelve weeks, or fifteen weeks, or at birth, are mistaken. Life begins when the Almighty, in Love, bestows a psyche, or personhood, upon one sperm out of millions travelling up a fallopian tube ...
Posted 05-Nov-06, 06:10pm
Bill Muehlenberg's response
Bill Muehlenberg recently offered the following response to the series of blogs concerning his background and activities that have appeared on this site during the past few weeks. This response took the form of a letter to the evangelical fortnightly New Life (2 Nov. 2006, 10):
I have long been aware of the number of people and organisations that really do not like me and what I am doing. But lately I have learned of even more hatred and animosity being directed at me, and all this makes me realise how much more I need your prayer covering. The hatred and vitriol is of course symptomatic of a deeper spiritual war, as Scripture tells us ...Just a few points about this response. Firstly, notice that (Baptist) Muehlenberg lives in an imaginary universe, extensively populated by spirit beings: Undoubtedly there are angels surrounding our home etc. Although he has some concerns about Pentecostalism - 'In Defence of Theology', 26/9/06 - he's clearly attracted to the more occultic aspects of this theology. In 1996 he participated in a Salt Shakers 'Prayer Bus' trip to Victoria's Dandenong Ranges:
I continue to be amazed and grateful that neither I nor my family members have been physically attacked as yet, and our home still stands. Undoubtedly there are angels surrounding our home, and all the hatred has thus far been limited to mail, email, phone calls etc.
But I realise just how much this ministry I am involved in brings out the wrath and bigotry of others. Homosexuals, feminists, libertarians, secular humanists and atheists have been targeting me. I am aware of whole files and dossiers being kept on me, of websites monitoring my every word and action, and groups considering me public enemy number one.
Other sites are devoted exclusively to the dangers of religious activists. Indeed, one website spends page after page quoting me (and other 'evil' Christians). If you have been involved in standing up for what is right, you might even find yourself quoted: http://www.unbelief.org/briefs/ ...
One atheist blogger even launched the 'Bill Muehlenberg Trophy' for what he regarded as my evil and nefarious ways ...
... I am concerned about my wife and children, that they do not get all the flak. And it sometimes takes its toll on me. I can feel quite alone sometimes. I feel I may be on the frontline, facing a vast enemy, and when I look around, I see hardly any comrades there with me. Of course Elijah felt this way ...
... [W]e must always treat our opponents with love and respect. We must respond in the opposite spirit to their attacks, hatred and nastiness ... [A]lways speak the truth in love.
[This area is the] home of numerous witches' covens, new age shops and occult groups ... The trip up and down the hills was filled with plenty of praise and worship as well as intercession against the various satanic strongholds. This even included stopping in front of a new age shop, run by a self-proclaimed witch, getting out and laying hands on the building, binding the spiritual forces within. (Salt Shakers Newsletter, Sept. 1996, 13)The point here is that people who go around touching buildings and 'binding spirits' are largely impervious to rational argument. Some contributors on his CultureWatch site try to convince Bill of this or that, but I'm sure they're wasting their time as he's far too entrenched in his fantasy world. Essentially, you don't argue the point with people like Muehlenberg. You just keep them under observation.
Secondly, Muehlenberg habitually confuses legitimate criticism of his position with 'hatred', 'animosity', 'wrath', 'bigotry' and 'vitriol'. Disagreement with his divinely-approved stance is always 'an attack'. I can speak only for myself, but to the extent that I consider my own emotional response to his writings and activities, I simply feel sorry that somebody could be so misguided. I deeply regret the harm his views cause, but 'hatred' is far too strong a word to describe my own reaction. He once wrote that one of his sons had been injured, and I realised (with some amusement) that I'd immediately experienced sympathy for the child and empathy with his parents.
Muehlenberg's response to criticism forms part of a more generalised fear of the world about him. He sometimes feels 'quite alone', facing 'a vast enemy'. On his website he muses that his brand of Christianity may soon be 'outlawed altogether', 18/8/05; that it will be 'hounded out of existence', 8/9/06; and that 'open season' has been declared on Christians,13/9/06. Parallels can be drawn between Muehlenberg's view of himself and the theological concept of Christ as a 'suffering servant' later raised to glory. I leave any conclusions about these matters to better-qualified judges.
Finally, at no stage does Muehlenberg address issues raised in the earlier blogs. Almost by definition he 'wins' all arguments with unbelievers as God is on his side, so little matters like the precise value of his qualifications, the nature of his creationism, and the insulting attitude he adopts towards opponents can be safely ignored. He even concludes his letter by asking his supporters to treat their adversaries 'with love and respect', something that Bill himself signally fails to do. I'll conclude with this recent example:
Consider the story of a Queensland couple who gave up fostering children after a number of run-ins with social workers ... These faceless - and obviously brainless - bureaucrats blasted the couple for seeking to foist their version of parenting on to these foster children ...And where do the 'brainless bureaucrats' come from?
[O]ur universities are hothouses for political correctness and radical ideology. This is certainly true of the arts and humanities departments. Thus students today being trained in social work, child care and related courses are certain to get the latest feminist, homosexual and anti-family clap-trap. ('When PC Endangers Our Children', 20 Sept. 2006)How loving and respectful can you get?
Posted 25-Oct-06, 10:10pm
BILL MUEHLENBERG: a profile
(5) Is Muehlenberg a theocrat?
Bill Muehlenberg denies that he is a theocrat, but I disagree. In national terms, a theocrat claims that a god is a particular country's ultimate ruler and that the nation should be operating according to that god's laws. In the longer run, Muehlenberg would like to see Christ returning to earth and directly ruling the entire planet. In the short term, he wants to accelerate the process by which this situation might occur by 'Christianising' the nation. I'll begin by drawing rather extensively on an article I wrote in 2003 entitled 'Australia's Theocratic Right'.
The modern 'Christian' theocratic approach to politics is often termed 'dominion theology' and it has a wide range of guises and levels of intensity. Adherents of dominion theology encourage Christian political activism leading to sweeping social change rather than mere adjustments to the social system. In practice, these proposed changes tend to be of an authoritarian kind.
In its extreme form, dominion theology is called 'Christian Reconstructionism', a contemporary Christian movement aimed at reorganising society in accordance with Biblical guidelines, especially those laid down in the first five books of the Old Testament. This would include the death penalty by stoning, burning etc. for 'crimes' such as abortion, homosexuality and, in the case of women, 'unchastity before marriage'.
While I do not assert that Muehlenberg is an outright Reconstructionist, it is difficult if not impossible for individuals and groups now generally regarded as forming Australia's 'Christian right' to distance themselves from the broader concept of dominion theology. Their policies on issues such as abortion, bioethics, censorship, homosexual rights etc. will inevitably become 'operationally dominionist'. In other words, even if they deny that they subscribe to the teachings of Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North, Francis Schaeffer or some other dominionist ideologue, they cannot achieve their long-term goals in the absence of a 'Christian' (i.e. religious authoritarian) government. And to that extent Muehlenberg and similar individuals and groups must act according to the dictates of dominion theology.
I should acknowledge at this point that Muehlenberg sometimes claims to hold 'democracy' in high regard (see, for example, 'Faith and politics', 20 Oct. 2006), but most of these assertions are open to interpretation e.g. 'The blessing of democracy allows open debate and the possibility of reform' ( 'Abbott on Islam', , 18 Sept. 2006). Does Muehlenberg value democracy as desirable in itself or merely as an instrument to facilitate the achievement of his political objectives? Muehlenberg believes that '[r]eal freedom is not the ability to do whatever we want, but to do what is right' ('Pornography: is it a victimless crime?', The Australian Family, Nov. 2005, 15). The latter part of this viewpoint sits uncomfortably with democratic ideals. In 2003, I listed a number of characteristics by which we could recognise adherents of theocratic ideologies like dominionism. Some of these descriptors were as follows:
- regular use of terms like 'biblical worldview', 'cultural warfare', 'spiritual warfare', ' Christian nation', 'Christian heritage', Christians as 'salt and light' etc.;
- an unshakable conviction that they and people like them are the sole custodians of 'the truth';
- near-obsessive, condemnatory interest in sex-related social issues such as homosexual rights, pornography, abortion, sex education and feminism;
- quoting authors such as Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, John Whitehead and (Reconstructionist) Greg Bahnsen;
- showing relatively little interest in 'social gospel' issues such as poverty, unemployment, the plight of the underprivileged etc.;
- attacking 'pluralism' and 'tolerance' and defending 'discrimination';
- an expressive style involving anger, confrontation and extensive use of war imagery;
- strong promotion of Christian schools and home-schooling;
- downplaying denominational differences, even between evangelicals and Catholics, in order to advance political causes;
- characterising opponents as demonic.
- a commitment to creationism.
The bottom line in all of this is what is our basis of authority? Is it God's unchanging word, or is it fashionable social trends? Is God's revelation the standard by which we judge all moral/social questions, or do we judge them by the changing theories of men? ('Homosexuality and Church Leadership', 29 Aug. 2003)Many evangelicals regard 'the bottom line' in roughly this way, but Muehlenberg's mode of expression here is very typical of a specifically creationist standpoint. Young Earth Creationists (YECs), who teach a literal reading of the Genesis creation story, often explain their point of departure exactly as Muehlenberg does here.
So is he a YEC, believing that the earth and man were created in approximately their present form no more than about 6,000 years ago? Well, that's hard to say. He's clearly a creationist of some sort:
[Three anti-evolution authors, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe] have collectively undermined many of the faulty towers of Darwinism. A few more well-aimed hits and the whole edifice could collapse. Darwinism has been one of the great intellectual superstitions of modern times. ('Darwinism Under Fire', Salt Shakers Newsletter [SSN], May 1998, 8)Muehlenberg seems to deny the possibility of macro-evolution (i.e. denies that distinct species such as apes and humans could have shared a common ancestor) and appears to dismiss evolution as anti-Christian:
Darwinistic evolution is a competing worldview to the Biblical Christian worldview. One may hold to one or the other, but they cannot be held to simultaneously. (ibid., 7)This is a characteristic YEC position, and Muehlenberg has many YEC friends, but as in other areas of his theology he is inconsistent. For example, he evidently accepts that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. Also, he is regarded as theologically unsound by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (Sarfati, letter in New Life, 10 Mar. 2005).
Regarding the extremist doctrine of Reconstructionism, Muehlenberg is also rather hard to assess. On the one hand, he approvingly quotes Reconstructionist authors like Greg Bahnsen ('Homosexuality and the Bible', SSN, Oct. 1995, passim), appears on platforms with people who seem comfortable with Reconstructionist ideas, and sometimes looks like he's writing for a Reconstructionist handbook:
Almost all of the good achieved in the Western world has come about because of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Now is not the time to abandon that tradition, but to reclaim it, and reclaim it more forcefully than ever. ('What are we fighting for?', News Weekly, 17 Dec. 2005, 13)We should also not forget that Muehlenberg was trained by Youth with A Mission (YWAM), a dominionist organisation with Reconstructionist tendencies (Brian's Blog, 5 Oct. 2006). He is very attuned to Reconstructionist ways of thinking, favouring the practice of shunning openly homosexual church members; reintroducing 'stigma and shame' for social miscreants such as single mothers, (review of James Q. Wilson The Marriage Problem, 14 Mar. 2006); and recommending the physical punishment of children with pieces of wooden dowel:
... [T]here is wisdom in using an object, e.g. a wooden dowel ... In the same way, animal trainers recommend using an object instead of the hand. (Letter in Melbourne Herald Sun, 19 Oct. 1998, reprinted in SSN, Nov. 1998, 11)Sexual 'misbehaviour' of any kind should be countered by government action:
While it is not yet illegal to smoke ..., governments have done much to deter the behaviour, to reduce it, to discourage it ... [W]hy can't governments try this with other behaviours? ... Why not [with] promiscuous sex of any kind? ( 'An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality', 13 Jul. 2006)In a bravura display of dominionist authoritarianism, Muehlenberg was one of the few people supporting the right of parents to use a kit that scientifically tests teenagers' underwear in order to detect the presence of semen:
... [T]here might be a few parents that need it but they would have to be pretty careful. (Daniel Dasey 'Sex test checks on children', Melbourne Age, 5 Aug. 2003)However, Muehlenberg sometimes takes care to distinguish his views from 'those in the ... dominion/Christian Reconstruction camp' (see, for example, 'An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality', 13 Jul. 2006). But the preceding paragraphs indicate that any difference between his own theology and dominionism must be paper-thin, if indeed it exists at all.
To conclude this brief overview of Muehlenberg's personal theology, some of his writing raises certain questions about his 'Christian right' orthodoxy. Astonishingly (for such an anti-feminist), he seems happy to concede that the Bible sometimes refers to God as a mother, although he is wise enough not to elaborate (Five Book Reviews [Book 5], 23 May 2005); and that we are only 'primarily' free moral agents, which opens the door to speculations about his views on Calvinism etc. ('Affirming Responsibility in an Age of Irresponsibility', SSN, Apr. 1999, 9)
More seriously, having criticised theological liberals for 'picking and choosing' from the Bible, he does a pretty good job of it himself. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' doesn't get much of a run in Bill Muehlenberg's theology. He regards 'God is love' as 'a half-truth':
The same Christ who drew children into His arms will also come back with a sword to judge the earth, as the Book of Revelation makes clear. ('Homosexuality and Scripture: Part 3', New Life, 22 Jan. 2004, 5)As for the Golden Rule ('Do unto others ...'), as far as homosexuals and other targets of Muehlenberg's wrath are concerned:
Now this is a fairly broad statement, and may not be of so much use in determining how Christians and the state deal with homosexuality. As such, its inclusion does not help too much with the discussion at hand. ( 'An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality', 13 Jul. 2006)So a plain statement of what most people take to be the principal ethical tenet of Christianity 'may not be of so much use' and 'does not help too much'!
So is Muehlenberg a theocrat or not? Well, you make up your own mind, but if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck ...
Posted 16-Oct-06, 11:10pm
BILL MUEHLENBERG: a profile
(4) Muehlenberg vs the culture vandals
Like the late B.A. Santamaria, head of the National Civic Council, Bill Muehlenberg views himself as a soldier engaged in a war:
As in all conflicts, there are two competing sides seeking dominance and victory. On the one side there are those who hold to the Judaeo-Christian world view. On the other side are those who can best be described as secular humanists.The two sides can be distinguished by the values to which they subscribe:
The former side upholds values like marriage, sexual fidelity, the work ethic, honesty, discipline, self-control, moral absolutes, a transcendent set of rights and wrongs.And where do we find 'the other side'?
The other side more or less rejects those values and instead preaches a gospel of selfishness, hedonism, permissiveness, narcissism, irresponsibility, instant gratification of desire and moral relativity.
The latter side tends to predominate in the centres of power, the media, academia, the entertainment industry, the political bureaucracy and so on. ('The Case for Christian Social Involvement', 1996-7)The conflict between these forces of 'good' and 'evil' - conceived as a zero-sum game, where any gain for one 'side' represents a corresponding loss to the other - dominates Muehlenberg's political thinking and hence his published work.
He regards himself as being both objective in his treatment of social issues and generous towards his opponents. Thus his CultureWatch website '... will discuss critically and soberly where our culture is heading.' And all along:
... we need to remember Ephesians 4:15, which exhorts us to 'speak the truth in love.' And we need to remember 1 Pet. 3:15: 'Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.' ('Truth-speaking: getting the right mix', Salt Shakers Newsletter [SSN], Feb. 1997, 3)Here are a few examples of Bill Muehlenberg 'speaking the truth in love', taken from an impressive field of contenders:
The [Melbourne] 'Age' is notoriously pro-homosexual, with almost daily pro-homosexual reporting and opinion. Of course, with many homosexual activists on staff, this is not surprising. Such is the blatant bias in this regard that one could quite accurately call this paper the Melbourne 'Gayge'. ('Propaganda Masquerading as News', 22 Jun. 2006)And here are a few examples (from an even stronger field) of Muehlenberg's 'sober' discussion of where our culture is heading:
[Alfred] Kinsey of course is the notorious American [sexologist] (1894-1956) whose agenda was to soften up the public to the view that any and every sort of sexuality was permissible ... [T]oday we see the result of this social and sexual revolution: broken families, marriage disintegration, a tide of pornography, including child pornography, an epidemic of promiscuity ... and a culture that believes hedonism is the highest good, and self-control and restraint the greatest evil. ('Kinsey: the horror story', reprinted from Herald Sun, 18 Jan. 2005)
Former Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson was on the [SBS 'Insight'] program, and among other things made the incredible claim that it is 'an act of cruelty' to not recognise and legalise same-sex marriage and adoption rights. Of course for years Nicholson has been a strident proponent of various radical agendas ...
He went on to say that Christian values on marriage should not apply to the law ... Perhaps then we must ditch our laws on murder, theft and lying, to begin with. After all, they are all part of our Christian heritage ... Nicholson is simply pushing his radical secular agenda ... ('Truth, the Media and Ideology', 17 May 2006)
[Once the Victorian Charter of Rights has been passed into law], the whole weight of the state will be applied to make sure there are no dissenters. Thus, people who object to same-sex marriage may find themselves compelled to attend special education sessions to get their thinking straight, or bent, as is the case. ('Sneaking through a radical agenda', News Weekly, 1 Apr. 2006, 12)Shortly after telling readers that '[s]peaking the truth in an unloving fashion is just as harmful as being very loving while minimising truth' (SSN, Feb. 1997, op cit), Muehlenberg described one of his political opponents as 'a closet sleazeball' ('The powerful pull of pornography', SSN, Dec. 1996, 8). I think his ideas about 'speaking the truth in love' and 'sober discussion of the issues' need about as much work as his prophetic powers:
How have the universities grappled with the tragic events of 9/11? Have they learned anything? Have they had a change of heart? Have they given up on some of their radical ways? ... [According to author Harvey Mansfield] the strangleholds of political correctness, multiculturalism, leftist ideology and moral myopia continue to reign at Harvard and the academy ... Time will tell if anything can shake our universities out of their lethargy, blindness and radical thinking. ('Academia and 9/11',15 Sept. 2006)
[Family values] have been under sustained attack since the late 1960s, says Bill Muehlenberg ... In that rebellious era, 'the importance of authority, family, religion were all chucked out in favour of the idea that God is dead, there are no values, we can all create our own right and wrong.' (Elizabeth Feizkhah 'Christian Soldiers', Time Asia, 29 Nov. 2004)
If current trends continue, you may soon no longer [be able to] receive these emails [from me]. Indeed, you may soon find most Christian and family literature banned from public circulation. (Muehlenberg, quoted in Salt Shakers Journal editorial, Dec. 2003, 2)
Now that thousands of Iraqis are dancing in the streets of Baghdad rejoicing in their liberation, will all the anti-war protesters now offer their apologies, having learned their lessons? (Muehlenberg, letter in Melbourne Age, 11 Apr. 2003)[To be continued. Comments and contributions are welcome.]
Posted 12-Oct-06, 11:10pm
BILL MUEHLENBERG: a profile
(3) 2000-2006
Having rejoined the Australian Family Association (AFA) as National Secretary early in 2000, Muehlenberg was later appointed National Vice-President of that body (Muehlenberg, letter to Age, 27 Mar. 2002) although his responsibilities - writing of articles, media liaison etc. - seem to have remained the same.
Having soft-pedalled the origins of his Bible college degrees for most of the 1990s, Bill suddenly became very up-front about them. He began reviewing books for Amazon and in one such review (Scott Hahn Hail, Holy Queen, 31 July, 2002), Muehlenberg referred to having graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Boston (fifth review) 'with highest honours'. He has since referred to his outstanding performance in this degree on a number of occasions. - www.christian-witness.org/archives/Entre/authors.html (second last entry)
By 2004 (at the latest) Muehlenberg was working as a part-time Library/Administrative Assistant, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Faculty of Business and Economics, at the Caulfield Campus of Monash University. He was described as having 'worked in libraries in North America, Europe and Australia', which is why I feel that he may have worked as a librarian during the 1970s before embarking on his tertiary studies. I can find no reference to him holding specific library qualifications but these may not be necessary in his Monash position.
In July 2004, he was appointed by the Canberra-based Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) as a part-time research officer 'focusing on pure research in family policy'. - (ACL National Newsletter, Jul. 2004, 2). In the following month, Muehlenberg played a leading role in the National Marriage Coalition (NMC), an alliance between the AFA, ACL and Warwick Marsh's Fatherhood Foundation. The NMC held a 'National Marriage Forum' in Canberra on 4 August. The Forum is regarded as having spurred the Howard Government to pass legislation barring same-sex marriages in Australia. (Bill Muehlenberg 'Faith and family wins', New Life, 19 Aug. 2004)
Ever since 1992, Muehlenberg has made several references to his PhD studies at Deakin University. As of 2004/5, Muehlenberg's PhD thesis topic was entitled: A current assessment of recent philosophical/theological responses to the problem of suffering and evil, School of Social Inquiry, Deakin University. (link no longer available).
As far as I know, Muehlenberg is still working on his doctoral studies. Unless leave-of-absence has been granted (perhaps more than once) I simply observe that there seems no obvious reason why a part-time student should take 15 years to complete a PhD degree.
By the second half of 2005, Muehlenberg was clearly beginning to drift away from the AFA, possibly owing to the divisions taking place at that time within the parent National Civic Council (p.2). Bill began to describe himself as 'an independent commentator on cultural, social and religious issues' and 'a cultural missionary with a mandate to stand up for God's standards in the secular world':
Bill works freelance, speaking up for Biblical values in society as an independent consultant/contractor. He is often contracted to various Christian organisations as a researcher or speaker ...Muehlenberg also receives gifts from well-wishers. For example, in November 2005, the Victorian General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria revealed that it 'gave ongoing financial support for Bill Muehlenberg, Saltshakers and the Australian Christian Lobby.' (Australian Presbyterian, Nov. 2005, p.19)
- Link-Zone.net
At the end of the year, Muehlenberg finally left the AFA although he still contributes to publications run by the NCC stable of organisations. As Bill explained to some of his supporters:
...[A]t the end of last year I resigned my 3-day-a-week paid position at the Australian Family Association ... My focus will continue to be working as a Christian apologist, ethicist and 'culture warrior', speaking up for Biblical values in society ... Our family has similar financial needs to most others in Australian society, with 3 teenage boys and a sizeable mortgage to pay ... I have gathered around me a Board of Advisors who can help me in wise stewardship, creating a new ministry that would be spiritually, ethically and financially responsible. Seven or eight godly men and women - Christian leaders in their own right - have agreed to be my spiritual counsel and advisors ... ( 'Bill's new ministry' - 10 Jan. 2006)Around this time Muehlenberg began operating his own 'CultureWatch' website.
[To be continued. Comments and contributions are welcome.]
Posted 10-Oct-06, 10:50pm
BILL MUEHLENBERG: a profile
(2) 1989-2000
Between his arrival in Australia in 1989 and his appointment to a position with the National Civic Council's (NCC) 'Australian Family Association' early in 1992, Bill Muehlenberg immersed himself in the conservative side of Australian political culture. AD2000, an NCC publication, told its readers that Muehlenberg:
... who is a Baptist, is a graduate from Wheaton College and the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the United States and has had extensive experience in research and library work in the Netherlands and US. He was until recently head of the environmental policy uni[t] at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne. He is the author of 'Modern Conservative Thought: an Annotated Bibliography', published by the Institute of Public Affairs. - (Introduction to) Bill Muehlenberg 'Christians and the "Green" prophets of doom: the need for scepticism', AD2000, Aug. 1990, 4By 1990, Muehlenberg regarded himself as sufficiently knowledgeable about Australian conservative politics to send a letter to Quadrant magazine, deploring the 'overly divisive and contentious' infighting between his fellow conservatives here. (Quadrant, Dec. 1990, 3) (I defer here to current usage of the term 'conservative' as Muehlenberg might more correctly be described as a 'radical religious reactionary' or some similar term. He certainly does not wish to preserve Australian society in anything like its current form. I will return to this question later.)
In 1991, he favourably reviewed a book by Phyllis Schlafly, leader of the anti-feminist (American) Eagle Forum, in the Australian Family Association (AFA) journal. A biographical note said that Muehlenberg 'has written for a number of Australian conservative journals, including "Quadrant", "IPA Review" and "News Weekly".' His degrees were now described as 'a BA in Philosophy (Chicago) and a MA in Theology (Boston)'. - The Australian Family, Dec. 1991, 34
Muehlenberg then launched upon his unparalleled career as a spokesperson and/or leading figure in several of the most significant Australian Christian right organisations. Nobody else comes close to matching the breadth of his experience in this area. Early in 1992, he was appointed National Secretary of the AFA, which reported that:
[Muehlenberg] is currently working on a PhD in Philosophy at Deakin University. [He has] previously worked for 'Quadrant' magazine and the Institute of Public Affairs. Bill takes over the administration of the AFA and the editorship of the Journal and 'Update'. - AFA Family Update, Mar-May 1992, 2To develop a point which I raised in the previous blog, it seems surprising to me that Muehlenberg was able to secure positions with well-established right-wing entities such as Quadrant magazine and the Institute of Public Affairs quite as easily as he did. He presumably offered these employers some impressive references, but their provenance remains a mystery.
In 1994, Muehlenberg was appointed Secretary of the National Civic Council-dominated Family Council of Victoria, a position he still holds. - Focus on the Family Australia Focus Review, July 1996, 1. This is a small organisation with tantalising links to the National Civic Council, Federal Cabinet Minister Kevin Andrews, 'fringe' Christian churches such as the Mormons and the Unification Church ('Moonies') and the ubiquitous Youth With A Mission.
In October 1994, Muehlenberg joined the foundation Board of the Melbourne-based Salt Shakers group - 'Wanted! Bill Muehlenberg for Salt Shakers ...' (insert), Salt Shakers Newsletter [SSN], Mar. 1998. He continued in his position at the AFA until mid-1996 when he was appointed National Research Coordinator, Focus on the Family Australia (FOFA) - Focus Review, op. cit. At the time, he reiterated that:
My ... qualifications include a BA in Philosophy (Chicago), an MA in theology and ethics (Boston) and ongoing PhD work in ethics at Deakin University, Melbourne ... [D]o keep me covered in your prayers. Being on the front lines can be a trying experience ... - 'A word about the editor', FOFA Family Forum, Sept. 1996, 3By about 1996 or 1997, he had become a National Executive member of the dominionist-oriented National Alliance of Christian Leaders.
Late in 1996, FOFA disclosed that Muehlenberg was only working part-time for them owing to a shortage of funds. Not for the last time in Bill's career, his employers launched an unsuccessful bid for funds to support their enthusiastic researcher and writer. - 'Can you help?', Family Forum, Nov. 1996, 4
But about a year later, Bill's luck finally ran out and there also seem to have been differences of opinion over the future direction of FOFA. Salt Shakers reported that:
Unfortunately for Bill, he recently lost his position at [FOFA] due to a shortage of finances ... We have always wanted him to work for Salt Shakers ... We want to employ Bill for three days a week ... - SSN, Mar. 1998, op. cit.The money was raised and Muehlenberg was given a part-time job as an 'article writer'. - SSN, May 1998, 2. However, by January 1999, further appeals for funds to keep him at Salt Shakers had fallen on deaf ears and his position disappeared:
He will still be assisting us voluntarily and he and Averil are continuing as Board members ... Bill is also aiming to complete his studies in the hope of seeking full-time employment in the lecturing area. - SSN, Mar. 1999, 17By the end of 1999, the Muehlenbergs no longer appeared on the list of Salt Shakers Board members although they remained on good terms with this group - SSN, Oct. 1999, 2 - and by February 2000, Bill had been re-employed as National Secretary by the Australian Family Association. - Muehlenberg, letter to Melbourne Age, 18 Feb. 2000. By this time he was also 'teach[ing] ethics and apologetics at several Bible colleges in Melbourne' while continuing work on his 'PhD in ethics' through Deakin University. - 'Christian compassion and injecting rooms', New Life, 3 Aug. 2000
I will have more to say about Muehlenberg's doctoral studies in the next blog.
[To be continued. Comments and contributions are welcome.]
Posted 05-Oct-06, 6:50pm
BILL MUEHLENBERG: a profile
(1) 1953-1989
William John ('Bill') Muehlenberg has been a leading figure in the Australian Christian Right for the past 15 years. He has held a number of official positions with organisations such as the Australian Family Association, Australian Christian Lobby, Focus on the Family Australia and Salt Shakers. He currently runs his own CultureWatch website. He also played a key role in the National Marriage Coalition, which in 2004 successfully pressured the Howard Federal Government to pass legislation banning same-sex marriages. I'll begin this series with a brief biographical sketch.
Muehlenberg was born in 1953 and evidently grew up in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA.
He rarely refers to episodes from his childhood or early adolescence and although I have read scores of his articles, letters and other publications, I have yet to discover any information about his parents, siblings (if any), schools, friendships etc. For a writer who trumpets the virtues of 'the family', this is most unusual.
During the 1960s, young Bill apparently became involved with what he now likes to call 'radical politics' or 'the New Left':
Like many others, my personal journey reflected in microcosm the changes going on in macrocosm during [the 1960s]. I eventually abandoned my agnosticism for Christianity, my radicalism for conservatism. I therefore replaced my books on the occult, eastern religions, New Left politics and Marxist revolution with books on religion of the more traditional sort, and politics of the more conservative variety. - Muehlenberg (1990) Modern Conservative Thought: an Annotated Bibliography (Institute of Public Affairs), (ix).Recently, Muehlenberg has begun to make a point of drawing attention to what he claims as his spectacular past:
The cultural revolution of the 60s unleashed a lot of madness and mischief on to the world. I should know, because I was a part of it. - ' Feminist Follies, or Why Men and Women are Different'However, it's doubtful that Bill played a very significant role in the New Left as he was just nudging 17 when the sixties ended. Shortly after this time he changed course entirely:
In 1971 (the year I left my radical past and became a Christian) ... - Why Fight the Culture Wars.I cannot find a single direct reference to Muehlenberg's activities during the 1970s although he may possibly have been working as a librarian, but he re-emerges as a missionary in Holland at some time in the 1980s. He met and married his wife Averil, an Australian, during this time. - 'A word about the editor', Focus on the Family Australia Family Forum Sept, 1996, 3
Muehlenberg's sojourn in Holland raises certain questions. He claims to have been a 'missionary' (see above) but also to have had ' extensive experience in research and library work in the Netherlands and US'. These occupations are not mutually exclusive but the absence of detail is rather intriguing. A Summit Ministries Australia speakers' list (link broken) says that Bill and Averil Muehlenberg 'spent five years in Holland working as missionaries with Youth With A Mission [YWAM].' According to Sara Diamond (1989):
One of the largest single sending agencies, ... YWAM, which had 1,741 missionaries in the field as of 1985, is closely allied with the US Christian Right ... YWAM founder Loren Cunningham ... as of 1988 began studying the Reconstructionist writings of Gary North, with the intent of incorporating 'dominion' or 'kingdom' theology into the ideological training given to YWAM missionaries. (Spiritual Warfare, 206)Muehlenberg himself displays strong dominionist tendencies i.e. he wants to see a close replica of the 'kingdom of God' established on earth prior to (and possibly as a means of hastening) Christ's Second Coming. For a time in the later 1990s (see later blog) he served on the National Alliance of Christian Leaders National Executive. This body is strongly influenced by dominionist and (even more extreme) Reconstructionist thinking as well as having close ties with YWAM. (See Australia's Theocratic Right).
I think that Muehlenberg must have come to Australia directly following his five years in Holland i.e. that he spent the years 1984 or 1985-1989 in Holland and then came directly to Australia. However, he says that he received his 'Chicago' degree in 1985, which is obviously compatible with the above timeline, but did not receive his 'Boston' degree until 1987. It is possible that he undertook the latter degree by some form of distance education, but I don't know.
As you can see from the Monash University link, Muehlenberg's degrees are listed in the first line as 'BA(Hons) Chicago, MA(Hons) Boston', with this later expansion:
He completed his BA in Chicago in 1985 and MA in Boston in 1987.This points to the fact that his degrees were not granted by Chicago University and Boston University respectively, but does not really make clear that the qualifications were in fact obtained from two evangelical schools, often termed 'Bible colleges', Wheaton College in Chicago and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Boston.
The standard practice is to identify one's degrees or diplomas by institution rather than by location, although for some reason Bill often departs from this convention e.g.:
My ... qualifications include a BA in philosophy (Chicago) [and] an MA in theology and ethics (Boston) ... - 'A word about the editor', ibid., 3The Muehlenbergs arrived in Australia in 1989 where Bill had the good fortune to be quickly employed by a think-tank called the Institute of Public Affairs.
Bill Muehlenberg currently holds dual citizenship (presumably US-Australian).
[To be continued. Any further information about Muehlenberg's background, particularly during the 1960s -1980s, would be gratefully received.]
Posted 23-Sep-06, 10:00pm
Darrell Furgason, YWAM and creationism
This is a story about wheels within wheels.
Canadian Dr Darrell Furgason, a regular visitor to these shores, works with Christian Right leader David Noebel's Summit Ministries in America. Furgason is as much to blame as anybody for the epidemic of 'Christian worldview' seminars currently on offer around Australia. His line is that everyone has to operate on the basis of some coherent ideology, most of which are very bad news:
If you're not learning a biblical worldview, you're learning another one, be it humanist, Marxist, Islamic or whatever. And that will affect your whole life, how you live your life. (Quoted in Carl Wieland and David Catchpoole's interview with Furgason, 'Islam and worldview: the big picture', Creation (Creation Ministries International), Sept.-Nov. 2006, 52)In an article published in Melbourne's Salt Shakers Journal in April 2003 (pp.4-5), Furgason listed many other 'false ideas and philosophies' which might drive you away from the only acceptable, 'biblical worldview'. These included naturalism, relativism, postmodernism, environmentalism, determinism, globalism and multiculturalism. Essentially, you needed to sweep away all these rotten, false ideas that had invaded your consciousness and instead develop a 'biblical mind'. If you could simply achieve this, you would suddenly see why homosexual behaviour and abortion rights could not be countenanced, and would immediately begin telling other victims how they too might achieve salvation. Salt Shakers soon started running its own worldview seminars and groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and the Festival of Light thought it was a pretty good idea too.
Although he had originally been infected by the atheist-humanist worldview dominating Western education, Furgason found it unsatisfying. I mean, what can you do with a worldview that can't give clearcut answers to questions like, 'What is the purpose of life?' or 'What is truth?':
I faced up to these questions for myself in Canberra in 1974 ... I was walking down the street when a young law student invited me to a free coffee shop. It was there, over Milo and bickies, that I realise atheism didn't have the answers.In the end, Furgason came to the only reasonable conclusion:
... that it is God, revealed in his son Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth and the life. Darrell Furgason then felt called by God to give up his backpack and get a university degree. ('Atheist backpacker re-views the world', South Australian Festival Focus, Aug. 2003, 4)When his faith was 'seriously challenged' at university, Furgason 'went back to Youth With A Mission' (presumably the operators of the free coffee shop) for teaching on the biblical mind and later returned to Canada and founded the Centre for Worldview Studies.
Sara Diamond (1989), who has undertaken several major studies of the American Christian Right, has this to say about Furgason's mentors, Youth With A Mission (YWAM):
[This organisation], which had 1,741 missionaries in the field as of 1985, is closely allied with the US Christian Right ... YWAM founder Loren Cunningham ... as of 1988 began studying the Reconstructionist writings of Gary North with the intent of incorporating 'dominion' or 'kingdom' theology into the ideological training given to YWAM missionaries. (Spiritual Warfare, 206)For some background on the sinister nature of Reconstructionism and associated theologies, see http://www.unbelief.org/articles/theocracy.html. For divergent views on the allegedly cultic aspects of YWAM, see http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/4570.html?1158705365.
One of the most striking aspects of Furgason's 'biblical worldview' is his unabashed creationism. According to his recent interview with Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries International, Furgason:
... knows that the Genesis creation account, which he holds to absolutely, is a major battlefront. (54)According to Furgason:
Creation ministry helps establish the Bible's credibility in the minds of Christians, which is crucial - an assurance that the Bible is not a fool's book, which makes them open to being taught on the applicability of the Bible in politics, economics, law, etc. Give away Genesis 1-11 and what is there left in the Bible? (55)Furgason specifically acknowledges Carl Wieland's direct influence on him through 'a YWAM school in Canberra.' (Wieland and Catchpoole op. cit. 55)
It's hard to dig very deeply into the background of Australian Christian right organisations and personalities without coming across 'training' groups like YWAM and ideological constructs like creationism. The relatively 'respectable' Australian Christian Lobby is a good example of this. A gentleman named David Yates used to run the Australian end of Furgason's 'Centre for Worldview Studies' with all the commitment to creationism which that entailed.
David Yates went on to become the Australian Christian Lobby's National Chief of Staff.
What did I say about wheels within wheels?
Posted 13-Sep-06, 9:10pm
Bill Muehlenberg and friends
Around the beginning of this year, Bill Muehlenberg started up his own website, calling it Culturewatch. Bill arrived in Australia from the USA (via Holland) back in 1989 and has since spent most of his time trying to straighten out our ideas about religion, morality and a few other small matters. He's worked for more Christian right organisations than you could shake a stick at - Australian Family Association, Focus on the Family Australia and Salt Shakers among them - but is currently between gigs.
Bill wants to see a Christian revival sweep across Australia. What would a 'revived' Australia be like?
... The police report that jails are emptying out, streets are quiet and little police work is necessary ... Many police devote their time to singing in choirs or helping out at church services...Bags be in the prayer meeting with Carey and Warne!
Many of the large sporting facilities like the MCG or the Gabba sit empty, partly due to lack of interest and partly due to so many athletes converting to Christ. People like Wayne Carey, Kieren Perkins, Cathy Freeman, Shane Warne and Andrew Gaze now spend most of their time holding evangelistic crusades and attending prayer meetings. ('Revival in Australia', Salt Shakers Newsletter, May 1998, 3-4)
Anyway, Muehlenberg invites the public to comment on his website essays and reviews and a number of people have done just that. A mate and I decided to check out these commentators to see whether Bill's many years of impassioned ranting have had much of an effect on Australia. We decided they hadn't.
Up to last month, less than 100 people had offered a comment on one or more of Bill's articles. And although he warns others against preaching only to the converted, that's pretty much what Bill himself does. Many of the Culturewatch comments are little more than sycophantic tripe.
There are a few well-known 'Christian right' names here, among them Tas Walker of Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis). Muehlenberg himself is a committed creationist although he doesn't say much about this in public. Jenny Stokes of Salt Shakers and Spencer Gear have also made comments on Bill's site.
Many of Bill's interlocutors seem to be people he's met through his contacts with groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, parties like Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party (several of these) and the Christian school movement. Muehlenberg is a Baptist and attends the large Crossway church in East Burwood, Victoria and this accounts for some other commentators. There are a few conservative Presbyterian, Uniting Church and Assemblies of God types dotted around the place, but with a handful of exceptions, an absence of conservative Catholics. All those years working for the National Civic Council's Australian Family Association don't seem to have contributed much to Bill's personal following.
One name that caught our attention was that of Frank Gashumba. Frank once contributed a wildly anti-feminist article to News Weekly, but his main claim to fame is his vitriolic attitude towards this website and towards your humble correspondent in particular. His last email to us concluded with the words:
... [Y]ou can rest safe in the knowledge that I [d]on't have enough respect for you ... ever to visit your webpage again ...So, Frank, if you find yourself reading this ... We gotcha!
Posted 05-Sep-06, 10:00pm
Richard Hole and answered prayer
There have been many attempts to discover whether praying to the Christian god has any effect. During the last few years, some studies have been conducted in which groups of Christians and others have prayed for certain types of hospital patients. But apart from obvious methodological problems e.g. how do you exclude the effects of prayers by a patient's family members and others outside the assigned group of supplicants, none of the scientific studies has demonstrated significant effects.
Richard Hole of Tolga in Queensland has a much more far-reaching idea and placed this ad in a recent issue of New Life evangelical magazine ('Does prayer make a noticeable difference?', 10 Aug. 2006):
We are seeking people to help us to search for those who are obviously led and helped by God ... If we can find divinely led people the benefits would be enormous, as they would be able to help, encourage and pray for us.Did your bulldust detector just start spinning around at full speed? Let's see where he goes next:
[These divinely led people] would teach us the truth so that we can effectively serve God. Then God would hopefully help us, so there would be fewer disappointments ...Here comes the rationale:
The Bible promises blessings and answered prayer for those who obey God, and curses for those who disobey. Therefore the people who are truly doing God's will and teaching the truth should receive more help from God than the ungodly, so that the result cannot be explained naturally or by chance.And how do we recognise these paragons?
The righteous should have obvious help from God in practical ways, such as remembering and comprehending things, making the correct decisions, finding what they need ...Well, are you doing all right so far?
... and supernatural healing.Rats, foiled again!
They should also have less frustrating problems, such as inconveniences, accidents and losing things. They should also make fewer mistakes than those not led by God ... Do you know anyone who is obviously supernaturally led and helped by God in practical ways as described above?Mr Hole of Tolga proceeds to warn us that 'desirable outcomes' are sometimes experienced by the ungodly as well, so that:
... [e]vidence would be a greater percentage of desirable outcomes or answered prayers in the lives of those claiming to be led by God ...Only a 'very small' proportion of the population will fall into this category as most people have been deceived by the devil.
It seems to me that Mr Hole has taken on a very challenging task here. And I rather suspect that if your 'divinely-led' nominee differs from Mr Hole's own scriptural interpretations, you may as well save your time. However, if someone springs to mind:
I am seeking the truth and have a website at truechristianity.com which contains Scripture references and suppressed truth ...And if you have some cash to spare:
Sponsors are also needed for similar ads ...As Jerry Springer has been known to remark: where do we find 'em?
Posted 24-Aug-06, 11:30pm
Southern Cross Bioethics Institute
David Rivers of Mordialloc in Melbourne is such a spoilsport. Just as I'm about to launch into the Adelaide-based Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) and their controversial 'surveys' into subjects like abortion and therapeutic cloning, David comes up with this excellent letter to the Age. How dare he do all my work for me?
A Catholic organisation, the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, commissions a survey into attitudes to therapeutic cloning and, hey presto, finds that most Australians (51 per cent) oppose it. But this finding contradicts all previous independent surveys suggesting 80 per cent support it.Rivers then asks the key question:
Southern Cross previously commissioned a survey into attitudes to abortion, and similarly concluded that most Australians (63 per cent) opposed abortion on demand. Again, this contradicts a number of independent surveys finding up to 80 per cent support for abortion on demand.
How can this one organisation repeatedly make findings that contradict all previous surveys on the same topic? Either the findings are a foregone conclusion, or the figures are rubbery. This survey needs to be seen for what it really is - a religious lobby group's attempt to influence the political agenda. (Age, 23 Aug. 2006)There's no doubt that Rivers is correct in describing SCBI as 'a Catholic organisation', although the Institute constantly wails that it's 'independent, non-sectarian, autonomous' and entirely above-board. But apart from the odd Anglican, Lutheran and Jew adding flavour to the mix, SCBI's personnel list looks like a Catholic house of horrors.
One of the SCBI's leading lights over the years has been Dr John Fleming, a former Anglican who defected to the Catholic Church in the mid-1990s, evidently attracted by its relative medievalism. Other stars include Catholic ethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Bishop Anthony Fisher and Dr Joseph Santamaria. Even the lesser-known names are often prominent Catholics e.g. Anna Krohn, Director of the Catholic Pastoral Formation Centre in Melbourne and Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family. Several SCBI people have ties with more strident anti-abortion groups such as Right to Life Australia, the National Civic Council and it