ad hominem attacks (teaching our kids to think: Part IV)

... the next step? ...

We have heard the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition and I have to say from a personal point of view I felt sick listening to him.  I felt sick because what he espoused was actually bigotry, effectively.

- Ms O'Connor, MHR (Tasmania - Labor), 21 September 2011, 12:58p.m.

Your views are offensive, oppressive and unacceptable ...  It is little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hodgman, made a speech unbefitting of a leader of a political party.  It was a shameful, divisive, reactionary, unpleasant speech that made me feel ill to even hear him utter the words that he spoke.  ...He is a man who clearly does not understand what discrimination means, a man who in my view has abused his position to represent people. ...In stark contradiction to the cowardice shown by the Leader of the Opposition ...

- Mr Booth, MHR (Tasmania - Greens), 21 September 2011, 3.01p.m.

Why on earth are we paying these people? I would have thought, in a supposedly rational age, that we are to be governed by evidence and by reasoned arguments. Instead, I find that we are governed by the delicate stomachs of some Labor and Greens MPs. 


Obviously that is overstated - I'm sure I hope I pray that the decisions of government that count (as opposed to symbolic motions such as the Tasmanian same-sex marriage motion) are made on the basis of evidence and reason.


This exchange in the Parliament shows a side of argument that is all too common, and extremely ugly. It's called an ad hominem attack (or argument), and just means an attack/argument directed at the person (rather than at the content of what a person is saying).


An ad hominem attack is a distraction - it could be intentional (to divert attention away from an argument that a proponent knows to be weak) or unintentional (I can't think of anything else to say, so I'll attack the other side). Frankly, it doesn't matter which. The point is to recognise an ad hominem attack, and to know how to sidestep it. It is vital not to engage with it (waste of breath), or descend to such tactics (because the person you're speaking with will stop listening!)


An easy technique to sidestep such an attack is to step out of the argument for a moment, and to narrate what's been going on.  For instance:

I've just supported my opposition to same-sex marriage by arguing that marriage is not just a word that can be redefined. It describes, in a unique cultural context, a treasure and widespread commitment between a man and a woman. You have responded by saying that my words made you feel sick. How does your physical reaction to my argument, or your guess about my motivations, have any bearing on the evidence or reasons for my position?

How might our kids benefit from such a technique? How could they use it? What about:

• I might just be a kid who knows nothing about this, but what would you say to an adult who asked the same question / raised the same objection?
• I know I still need to learn a lot. Can you please help me? Can you please tell me why you think my views are wrong?

Can you think of other examples? What do you get your kids to say in response to a personal attack?  

In favour of (some) discrimination ... (Teaching our kids to think: Part III)

I believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong. - Ms Lara Giddings, Premier of Tasmania, 21 Sept 2011, 12:18 p.m.

With respect, Ms Giddings, is that true? Do you really believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong? For instance:

• Are we wrong to give smarter or more diligent students better grades than lazy ones (intellectual capacity)? 
• Are we wrong to provide separate toilet and change facilities for men and women at public pools (sex dscrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to condemn a sexual relationship between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old (age discrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to prevent a convicted paedophile from working with children (sexual orientation discrimination)?

Of course not. These forms of discrimination are entirely appropriate and necessary in our society.

But what is discrimination? The Macquarie dictionary defines it as (amongst other things) "the making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against a person or thing". It carries implications of "noting or observing a difference". So I think a useful working definition in this debate is that of treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic or other.

The big issue is to distinguish between wrongful discrimination and appropriate discrimination. I suspect that Ms Giddings really means "all forms of wrongful discrimination are wrong" - which of course begs the question: "How do you decide what forms of discrimination are wrongful? by what standard or criteria?"

It should be clear from this that it is not enough to claim that the current social norms of marriage are discriminatory, as if that is a reason for change. Of course they are discriminatory. They should be. With no discrimination at all, people would be free to marry multiple spouses, to marry near relatives, to marry children. No-one in the current debate is arguing for no discrimination in marriage norms and laws - the debate is about where to draw the line. The onus rests on those promoting change to present reasons and evidence for the change.

And using the word "discrimination" as magical incantation is neither evidence nor reason.


Update note: the definition paragraph was inserted after my admirable wife pointed out to me that I hadn't included one!

Opinion polls (Teaching kids to think: Part II)

So apparently some significant proportion of people are in favour of same-sex marriage. Or the same significant proportion are against. Or 3/4 of people surveyed think it's inevitable. What does it all mean?

In our democracy, public opinion polls are tempting and persuasive, I think because of our democratic basis of government. The numbers matter, because we are meant to make decisions based on what the majority wants.

But in another sense, the numbers don't matter. A position can be irrational, even when many people favour it. A decision can be a bad decision, even when the majority votes for it. Reality does not respect democracy.

We should demand some answers before we accept the results of any opinion polls. Who commissioned the poll? Do they have a bias that is more likely to skew results? (Rarely, some biases may lead to a more open mind about results) Who conducted the poll? Were they operating according to accepted statistical methods, or was it a "just click here" newspaper-type poll? What questions were asked?

If we're satisfied about these issues, the poll might be a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion. If so, it can be helpful in the democratic guidance sense. But even if this is so, they cannot help us determine if a position is rational or a decision is sound. Why do respondents support a position? Are they worried about how they'll look if they don't support the position? Do they just not care, and will run with the majority? Are they scared or intimidated into support? Have they thought through the issue and come to a reasoned conclusion, or are they parroting slogans?

What matters are the reasons behind the opinion poll answers - if we can possibly get at those reasons, and assess whether they are sound and rational (or not!), then we are getting some way towards good decision-making.

Whaddya mean? (Teaching our kids to think: Part I)

"An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a proposition!""Argument's an intellectual process, contradiction's just an automatic gainsaying of what the other person says!"

The "debate" on same-sex marriage in the House of Assembly reminded me of this Monty Python sketch. Slogans, contradictions, name-calling, and a failure to really engage with the positions taken by opposing sides.

It would have been far better, far more honest and far more polite for those in favour of same-sex marriage to have outlined a reasoned position, rather than having resort to the slogans that are trotted out at these occasions. Failing that, perhaps Mr Hodgman* could have asked some simple questions of Mr McKim, inviting him to say clearly what he supports and why. 

With a few fairly simple questions, it is possible to get a firm idea of what someone thinks, and why. Sometimes this is enough to show that their position has no reasonable basis, or no evidence to support it. Sometimes it will reveal a useful line of enquiry or attack. Sometimes it will compel us to rethink our own position or beliefs. Any of these outcomes is a potentially useful one! Let's spend a little bit of time looking at what Mr Hodgman might have asked.

There are three sorts of questions that are really helpful here - questions of clarification, questions of justification/substantiation, and questions of challenge**.

Clarification, self-evidently, is about clarifying what a person means by the words they use when they set out their position. Justification or substantiation is about getting to the reasons and evidence that support a person's viewpoint. Challenge questions are a tool for testing a viewpoint against other viewpoints and/or real life situations. Let's look at how this might run in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. We'll do what we can to follow one particular line of argument, rather than covering the whole field.

The first point in the motion introduced by Mr McKim into the Tasmanian House of Assembly reads: "That the House supports marriage equality". Immediately that begs the question - "what do you mean by equality? Equal to what? Equality with what?" Equality is a word that requires context for its meaning. It is meaningful to say that two plus three equals five. It is meaningless to say that two plus three equals. In the same way, it is meaningless to say "I support marriage equality". Do you mean

• you support the same access for all to the status of marriage? 
• that all marriages deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection? 
• that all relationships deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection? 

Mr McKim expressly talks about providing "access to one of the most fundamental civil institutions in our society, the institution of marriage", it appears that he means at least the first of the dot-points above. (He may also mean the others, as there is some overlap). Mr McKim spoke about "removing legally entrenched discrimination". When we ask what he means by discrimination, it is clear that he objects to the existing position where a heterosexual couple can choose to marry (or not), while a homosexual couple does not have that choice. Equality of access is the same as allowing equal choice to a couple to marry or not, regardless of the sex of the couple.

The next type of question we want to ask is: "why?" Why should the law be changed to allow this? On the face of it, the nature of the couples is evidently different, in a number of ways:

1. a heterosexual couple has a member of each sex; a homosexual couple consists entirely of men or of women. 
2. a heterosexual couple is capable of producing children naturally (with some exceptions); a homosexual couple cannot produce children naturally. 
3. a heterosexual couple naturally models adult male and adult female behaviour to any children in the household; a homosexual couple cannot.

There are probably other obvious distinctions too. The question remains - why should the law be changed?

The answer provided by proponents of same-sex marriage is "love" - that love doesn't discriminate, so neither should the Marriage Act. but that begs other questions - why is love a sufficient ground to permit a couple to marry? What of other "loves" - adults for children, parent for child, siblings for each other? Why not permit them to marry too?  

There must be some additional ground that justifies state recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Something common to both, but not a feature of other close and loving relationships. I have not seen anything in the parliamentary debates, nor in the material on the Marriage Equality website that expressly states what it is, and there is no-one I can ask "what" or "why". So I'll have to guess, and I guess it's sex. That the argument is that the state should, for some reason, acknowledge and approve sexual relations between two people of the same sex in the same way that it does between a married couple. 

But why? Wasn't the argument of the homosexual lobby for so many decades that the state has no business enquiring into what is done in private between two consenting adults? Certainly that was the argument that saw Tasmania's criminal law changed in 1997, following challenges in the Human Rights Committee (UN) and the High Court of Australia. And now the argument is that the state should take note of those private sexual relations for the purpose of approval and celebration of them? And why is sex a basis for state recognition?

I haven't yet heard any compelling answer to these questions from those supporting same-sex marriage. That could just be a sign of the paucity of the debate here, and the narrowness of my reading on the issue. If you are aware of anything that answers my questions, do let me know.

But what of my original purpose? How can I act now to prevent my children learning to debate like a member of parliament?

Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
Proverbs 29:20

Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
Proverbs 13:3

Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry
James 1:19

As hard as it is, I have to try to encourage my kids to ask questions - particularly "what?" and "why?" (although preferably without the whining voices!) I will try to teach my children to listen well to what others say, and what they mean.

*Please don't think I'm being hard on Mr Hodgman. I admire the fact that he was willing to take a stand for the cause of real marriage in a room full of his opponents, that he weathered personal slights honourably, and that he did it with good grace. I doubt that any questions he asked would have been answered by anyone on the other side of the chamber.

**I'm indebted to Rev. Andrew Osborne, as well as to Mr Gregory Koukl's book Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions, for the organisation and description of these questions.

Teaching our kids to think: Introduction

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.Matt 22:37

I sometimes think that there was a gap in my Christian discipleship. I had great teaching from my parents, my church and my youth group about God, Jesus, the gospel and the bible. In my teens, I started to learn about the evidence and reasoning that supports faith in Jesus. But there was still a substantial gap.

Would I attribute my reticence to talk about faith to this gap in my knowledge? Perhaps (although there were probably larger obstacles, like pride and a desire to run with the crowd!)  

Do I think that my Christian witness was less effective? Yes. 

Do I want my kids to grow up with a similar knowledge gap? Absolutely not.

Now I didn't miss out on anything crucial (like the crucifixion or resurrection).  I understood the basics of my own faith and worldview.  The big gap was in understanding how others see the world, and in having the skill to expose the contradictions and fallacies in those worldviews. Unlike Paul, I hadn't learnt to: 

... demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and ... take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.2 Cor 10:5

Nor was I properly equipped to:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.Col 2:8

Lately, my education has been greatly improved by two books - they are both very readable and worth the time and cost. A Spectator's guide to Worldviews (Simon Smart) gives a great introduction to about 10 ways of viewing the world. It is written with a Christian audience in mind, and highlights common ground as well as points of departure. 

The second book is the knockout: Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian Convictions (Greg Koukl). This is a simple introduction to the art of inserting a stone in someone's shoe - pointing out weaknesses in someone's worldview that will hopefully lead to questions and, ultimately, the truth of Christ.

So at the moment I'm thinking through some of the implications for this new area of knowledge, and setting myself a challenge: how can I train my children up in this skill? How can I help them to identify error and illogicality? How can I help them learn to ask the gentle questions that expose folly and falsehood?

The next series of posts will start to unpack some of the ideas. For subject matter we'll be looking at the current debates around gay marriage (who's scared of an argument, huh?). I've chosen that because it's timely, because the issue is the hot point of a clash between western secularism and Christianity, and because so much of the argument (including in the Tasmanian House of Assembly!) provides examples of poor reasoning, overblown hyperbole, and rhetoric without evidence.

Sticky faith ...

This blog crossed my path the other day. It is a review of Sticky Faith: Everyday Ideas to Build Lasting Faith in Your Kids by Kara Powell and Chap Clark.  I haven't read the book yet, but I want to.  From the review, it looks like it provides some insight about a question that has been churning around in my brain: what can I do now to help my kids form a faith that will last with them into adulthood?

The three big themes that the blog picks out are:

1. They will follow what I do, not what I say.  If my faith is only lip service, and has no effect on how I live (in big and little things!), I should expect to see this mirrored in my kids in 20 years' time.
2. My kids need the gospel now!  Not a series of moralistic bible stories, or isolated "christian values", but an introduction to Jesus and a living relationship with Him.  Personally I need to trust Him, spend time with Him (in prayer and in the Bible), and as a Dad I need to model this faith for my children.
3. The whole Christian community is vital in help my children to form their faith and their character.

So, add another book to the reading list, and time to stop and take stock of the example I'm setting for my little acorns.

Which kid do I leave behind?

I got a letter the other day - another one asking for money. This one was different, though - it reached out a hand and twisted a knot in my guts. This paragraph particularly:

Australians understand drought. We understand having to leave the fields because there is no water for our crops. But we are not forced to make the choice between abandoning one very sick child or fleeing to a relief camp with your other child who may have a better chance of survival. We don't understand the anguish of getting to that camp after a long and dangerous journey to discover there is not enough food.

The letter was from ChildFund, and was about the famine in the horn of Africa. It really hit my Dad-soft-spot, and my brain started whirling through permutations in my own family: how would I choose between staying to tend my sick child (so endangering my others), and leaving with the healthy ones for a camp? How would I make the call that my sick child is too sick to travel, and should be left behind? Who would I leave them with?


And the endless second-guessing of whatever horrific decision I made? How would I ever sleep afterwards?


In the days that have followed, I have started to reflect on how to introduce such topics to my own children. They are 7, 5 and nearly 2. To date I have not had to think about this - the letters come, we make a donation, the kids know nothing about it. But my 7-year-old is quite bright and perceptive. She is starting to be exposed to things like the 40-hour famine at school. She has already got a Leprosy Mission money box from our church that she periodically drops some change into. I pray all my children will grow up with a desire to alleviate suffering wherever they can. I can see that the process starts here. What do I say to her? How much do I tell?


I don't have any answers yet.  What do you do?


PS.  ChildFund Australia has many projects in the horn of Africa, and has a long-term commitment there. They are involved in both aid and development work. You can donate to their horn of Africa appeal by calling 1800 023 600 or online at www.childfund.org.au. I receive no benefit from ChildFund (although I have been a supporter of them for a long time, so there's some emotional capital invested!)

Olive shoots around my table

Do you enjoy your children?

As I write this I'm sitting in an ancient rectory about 1300 km away from my wife and children. The distance frees me a little from that constant, immediate worry about whether I'm doing the right thing for my kids. And if I'm perfectly honest with myself, it removes the little annoying things that they do, and allows me to reflect on God's grace in giving me those kids and the enjoyment they bring. What a round-about way of saying that I'm missing them!

I love listening to them play together. Most of the time they're pretty good – they cooperate in their games, finding room for everyone in the game. When they argue, I catch myself holding my breath: will they work it out for themselves, or will I need to intervene? (I love it when they work it out for themselves!)

I enjoy when we get the guitar out after dinner (if there's time), and the kids pester me for yet another Colin Buchanan song. Their favourite this month is an old favourite by the prolific songwriter “anon”, with the verse:

The butcher was cleaning the back of his shop
he stopped for a moment to lean on his mop
he sat on the slicing machine with a jerk
and found that he'd got all behind in his work

They are transfixed, and howl with laughter every time we sing it.

I love when they create performances for us. The crowning glory so far was when my daughters and four of their friends created a play for all the parents who were present. The six of us crowded into the darkened auditorium (one of their beds) to watch the stage (the other bed) and the grand performance (five kids whispering to each other about who had to start speaking, and my youngest daughter hiding under a blanket). Suddenly, the door burst open and my smiling, crawling year-old-son started laughing at having found us all sitting in the dark.

I enjoy when I cook a dinner for them that they really love, and they announce that it's going in the “winner dinner list”. I don't get that accolade very often.

I love when my boy won't let me leave his room at night until I've held his hand and prayed with him.

My kids aren't perfect. They are sinners, just like their Dad. There are many ways in which I fail them. But from my current vantage point I can see God's grace to me through them. The words of psalm 128 really resonate with me at the moment:

Blessed is everyone who fears the Lord,
who walks in his ways.
You shall eat the fruit of the labour of your hands;
you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you.
Your wife will be like a fruitful vine
within your house;
your children will be like olive shoots
around your table.
Behold, thus shall the man be blessed
who fears the Lord.
The Lord bless you from Zion!
may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem,
all the days of your life!
May you see your children's children!
Peace be upon Israel!

Does this psalm always reflect my feelings about my children and my family? No, of course not. I mess up, and feel guilty about how I parent. I am frequently unsure about how to deal fairly with my children day-to-day. And of course I don't know how my kids will end up. But there is such great hope in psalm 128 – do you see it?

“Blessed are all who fear the Lord”, and “Thus is the man blessed who fears the Lord”.

If I fear the Lord – if I am in awe of Him and walk in His ways – I can trust Him with my children and my parenting. He deals with my parent sins at the cross (just like all my other sins). As I entrust myself to His care and to His way, I find I can prayerfully entrust my children to Him. As my relationship with Jesus grows closer, my anxieties about my children recede and I find I can enjoy them more.

This is my prayer for you (and me) this fathers day:

The Lord bless you from Zion!
may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem,
all the days of your life!
May you see your children's children!
Peace be upon Israel!

Happy fathers day!

Sugar and spice ...

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Ephesians 6:4

If you have daughters, you will have heard the line "sugar and spice and all things nice, that's what little girls are made of." Well that line was written by a boy who was trying to get a girl - not by a man with daughters! To be sure, there is plenty of lovely things about daughters, but there is no doubt that they are full of all sorts of things that are not all nice. My daughters are a bundle of emotions, even at the tender ages of 7 and 5. They go from playing nicely together one moment, to screaming, physical violence and "I'm not your friend anymore, and I mean it!" the next. They can go from happily relating a fun night at the school disco to a complete teary meltdown because said disco ended 15 minutes early, and said daughter didn't get a spot prize.

I am not a particularly emotional man, so when the emotional whirlwind hits it takes me way outside my comfort zone. I'm definitely not in Kansas anymore, Toto!


My default position (to my shame) is "shut it down". I reach for whatever it takes to switch off the emotional storm - whether sending the offending child out of the room, or back to her bed, or bribing her with treats, or caving in to her requests. Although I know that this is not a good way to raise my daughters, I resort to this tactic all too often. When the crisis hits, my parenting range is too limited to change.


In the last couple of weeks, though, I have started to see a better way. It's nothing to do with me - it has entirely been the Holy Spirit prompting me. God is gracious even in my tiredness and inability to respond immediately to my girls - it has meant a precious few seconds of silence when I can hear the better way that the Spirit is leading me to. He has shown me that the better way is to weather the storm with my daughter, rather than to shield myself from it.


So the other day, when Eldest's voice was again raised in rage at her sister, I could encourage her to use words to express why she was angry, rather than relying solely on her tone of voice to convey the fact that she was angry. (Thanks again to Ross Campbell's book How to really parent your child, and particularly the excellent chapters on helping your children to nullify anger.)


And the other night, when my sleepless child melted into tears hours after the great disco disappointment, rather than blowing my top, I could take her in my arms and talk through her disappointments. I could tell her about similar times I'd had growing up. I could reassure her that she was normal, that she was precious. We could pray together about the tumult in her heart.  


And as we weathered the storm together, we both found that indescribable peace that Jesus promises.

Childicus offspringii

Chances are, if you are reading this post, that you have discovered an infestation at your place.  You may have a houseful of the noisy, destructive little critters, or there may only be one.  Make no mistake about it, even one of these creatures will completely take over your life.

But before you call the exterminators, you need to know that children (childicus offspringii) are legally protected, and I'm told that the penalties are pretty steep should you kill one of them.

"If I can't kill them, what can I possibly do?"  I hear you ask.  There is no need for despair.  True, these pests are wildly varied, so that it's not possible to give a 10-step guide.  Yet with a few carefully implemented strategies, and by following some basic principles, you can drive the little pests away from your home and hearth quite successfully, and then enjoy peace and quiet once again.  

"What do I need to do?"  You ask.  "I'll do anything, just give me my life back!"

Read on ... 

1. Love is a battlefield.  There is no point being a complete villain toward them - the tactic may backfire and see them try to save you from your problems.  Far better to make them think that the problem lies with them.  Make them earn your love and approval.  Nice behaviour and good marks gets affection  and smiles, disobedience gets the cold shoulder.  If there is more than one little devil infesting your home, why not switch affections around depending on who's behaving best?  Keep them on their toes.
   
2. They are going to get angry.  But you can't let something as trivial as their emotions upset your domestic equilibrium.  Force them to bury those ugly feelings deep, deep within - far away from civilised society.  Make sure that they understand that anger is a hideous and unnatural feeling, that they must never bring to the surface, and especially never in your presence.  This will have the delightful side-effect of ensuring that they don't bring any real problems to you, in case their shameful anger comes along too.   And after all, there are plenty of opportunities for them to vent their frustrations at an appropriate time - when they're married, when they're driving, at their workplace.
   
3. These two principles take quite a long time to be effective - anywhere between 18 and 34 years!  But there is no need to lose heart - there is a way that we have found that can shorten this time scale.  The critters will hang around as long as they are sheltered and secure.  Direct action is still illegal, but there are indirect methods that will see the pests actually wanting to leave as soon as they can.  The trick is to get them to believe that their security depends on their behaviour.  Impose a curfew, and then lock the door promptly at curfew time.  Open the kitchen for a few brief moments each day - eat then, or eat not at all.  The restrictions you could impose are limited only by your imagination, but the message remains the same: "You are here under sufferance - none of this is yours."
4. Finally, I know that you will need some hope for day-to-day life while you wait for these strategies to have their effect.  You want some degree of peace and quiet, and you're entitled to it right now!  You should, by now, be aware that a direct confrontation will produce all sorts of noise and inconvenience, so this strategy is simply to avoid confrontation.  Eventually the little monsters will tire of trying to wrestle with a jelly, and will leave you alone.  So let them eat what they want; watch what they want; go where they please whenever they like.  Give them access to video games and the internet (a great way of keeping them quiet, with the added bonus that it relieves you of much of your educational responsibility!).  Am I being inconsistent with principle number 3?  Not at all!  If they want to do something that really inconveniences you, you need to fight back.  But so much of what they do is very little trouble to your life, that it really is easiest just to sit back and let them raise themselves.  

Now if you follow these principles carefully, you should find that the severity and duration of your childicus offspringii infestation is dramatically reduced.

A final word of warning - in some quarters it has been put about that you could actually live with these creatures peacefully, happily and joyfully!  Some authors will actually advocate that you should love unconditionally, allow them to express emotions, provide security and stability, and try to train them up!  Some authors like Ross Campbell who wrote How to really parent your child.  

Be warned: Have nothing to do with such dangerous ideas.  Your life will never be the same if you do!

Husbands, love your wives...

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Ephesians 5:25 

One of the best legacies that my Dad left me was his example of how he loved my Mum.  It wasn't that he was showy and romantic (at least, not that we saw).  It was that his love was a bedrock for their relationship, and consequently for our family.  He anticipated her needs and wants.  He brought her tea in bed in the morning.  He chipped in with the housework and cooking.  He didn't work all-hours, came home for dinners, spent weekends with us.  He remembered important dates, and celebrated them appropriately.  He remembered unimportant details (often concerning us kids), and so helped carry Mum's burdens.  He always respected her, always spoke kindly and lovingly to her, never bad-mouthed her or her family, and never, ever hit her.


I always felt safe at home (even when I didn't like some of the rules!), and I never felt the least possibility that our home life would change before I left to make a home of my own.  The grace of God and the good example of my Dad was so solid that I had trouble understanding some of the family struggles of my classmates.


My first full-time job as a lawyer was a real shock to me.  As a Legal Aid lawyer, I was meeting people whose families were built on quicksand, not bedrock.  Would Dad come home tonight?  Would there be money left after the pub and the pokies?  Would he be quiet, or drunk and violent?  Or else the questions would be of a different kind: Why did he leave?  Did I do something to drive him away?  Who was he anyway?


As I grow older, and see more of the world (and more of my community), I am incredibly grateful to my Dad.  I value his example of one man giving himself completely for one woman - and so building a safe place for his family.

Fear at a 7-year-old's birthday party

Ok, so I'm not writing about the abundance of pink frills, girly squeals and kids tripping out on food colouring.  Although these are pretty fearsome things, they were in moderation at Eldest's birthday last week.  (And in the case of the food colouring, completely eliminated due to the brilliance of my wife and some strategically placed blueberry skins and raspberry jam).  No, the chilling topic today is the far more prosaic habit of children to try to scare themselves silly with ghost stories.

There are 0 ghosts in this picture.

We recently had four 7-year-olds and one 5-year-old huddled together in the darkened bedroom, with only a torch for protection, persuading each other that if they looked just right, they could see an eyelash.  That's right, THE EYELASH GHOST IS COMING!  Five little girls come pelting out of the bedroom, clutching at my legs for protection from disembodied optical follicles.  


"There's a ghost in my bedroom, Dad!  Friend#1 saw it.  It's real."
"Darling, there are no ghosts in this house, we don't let them in here.  Now what do you want on your pizza?"
"But it spoke to Friend#2, Dad.  I'm scared."


7-year-olds are really persistent.  So of course I exorcised the ghost as any good Dad would - turned on the lights, confiscated the torch, told the girls that ghosts weren't real and to come to the table and eat some dinner.  (I suppose I could've got my wife's eyelash curler and fought the ghost valiantly with that, but as the idea has only just occurred to me, I'm three days late with that bit of parenting brilliance.  Feel free to use it yourself if you haven't yet had your brush with 7-year-old eyelash ghosts.)


The whole incident would have passed with nothing more than a roll of the eyes if it hadn't been for the persistence of my daughters' fears after Friends#1, #2 and #3 had all left.  Suddenly we don't want to go to bed, because the ghost is in the room.  We don't want Dad to leave the room, because of the ghost.  What to do?


Plan 1.1, as usual, is: raise voice, issue ultimatum, and think up some suitably fearful consequence for disobedience (gotta be pretty big to compete with ghost-fear!).  Then I remember that I'm trying to wean myself off plan 1.1 - it just takes so long to do the job, and produces too much bad-parent-guilt.  So I try the newfangled plan 2.0.  It's hardly even out of the box, and I definitely didn't read the instruction manual, so I'm winging it.


"You know there's no such thing as ghosts, don't you?"
"But Friend#1 said she saw it."
"There are no ghosts.  I know, because they're not in the bible.  People think that a ghost is a dead person who has come back.   The bible says that when we die, with either go to be with Jesus if we love him (like you and me), or we go to hell if we didn't.  The people who go to be with Jesus stay there, and the bible also says that the people who go to hell can't get out of there.  So you see there's no way a ghost could come back to be here - they're all either with Jesus or in hell!"
(Brilliant!  This plan is working beautifully already!)


"But Friend#1 saw one!"
(Aha, I think, mistakes and misperceptions... )  "Whatever she thought she saw, it couldn't be a ghost, because they're either in hell or with Jesus."  (Quick, what else could it have been?)  "You know how God created angels, and some of them went bad like satan, well there are demons.  They're real."  (Uh, oh - this isn't going so well - from ghosts, which are a bit weird-scary, to demons which are, well, demonic.)
My poor scared little 5-year-old doesn't have any words left - just great big blue eyes.
"Here, lets read this promise that Jesus made" and so we read together from John 6:37-40.  We talk about how Jesus beat satan and demons, and that we now don't need to fear them because He keeps us safe.  We talk about how he promises never to let us go or lose us.  We sing the Colin Buchanan version of those verses.  And she settles down to sleep.  There is power in the word of God.


Epilogue
Driving last night in the car, the ghost theme came up again.  5-year-old protests: "There are no ghosts.  They're all in hell". 


Well, near enough.

Hearken to the evidence ...

I didn't catch the Q and A episode with John Lennox - it had started before it hove into my conscience, but some friends of mine on twitter were tweeting about it.  So it's in the iView queue, and I followed the thread on twitter for a while.  Two significant themes emerged from the tweets: One is an assertion that Christianity cannot be proved, and so should not be taught in schools at all; the second is that teaching any form of religion in schools is brainwashing.


Both views seem to be pretty widely accepted in our society, and both views are complete rubbish.  So I want to respond, and think about how we can inoculate our kids against these fallacies.


Firstly - evidence for Christianity.  The standard argument that there is no evidence is usually one that relies on there being no scientific evidence for Christianity: that the existence of God, or the occurrence of miracles, or the efficacy of prayer cannot be tested under laboratory conditions.  Therefore they are unprovable scientifically, and therefore there is no evidence for a belief system that includes these things.  But if we look at these statements, it's clear that there are many things that will fall outside the field of scientific enquiry.  I know that my wife loves me; I know that I can trust my close friends to keep my confidences; I know that I can believe what my parents tell me: but there are no scientific experiments that can prove these things.


Perhaps nearer the point, most of us only know what our children did at school today because someone who was there told us.  We only know that Hadrian built his wall, or that Stalin killed his millions, or that Hannibal crossed the alps on elephants because of historical documents that record what witnesses to those events observed.  Most of us only know that there are microscopic things like atoms, molecules and cells because someone has told us about them (and certainly not because we've undertaken the scientific experimentation ourselves!)


The fatal flaw in the "no evidence for Christianity" argument is that it overlooks other categories of evidence in exclusive favour of scientific evidence.  As a criminal lawyer for 8 years I saw this same error occur at times in jury trials.  Extremely persuasive and cogent eyewitness testimony was rejected because there was no forensic scientific evidence.  If we refuse to take note of any evidence that is not scientific, we exclude significant sources of reliable knowledge.


I think it is important to teach our kids about this!  Not everything can be known through science.  Not everything that science tells us is necessarily reliable.  Our kids need to be taught to sift through and evaluate the evidence.  Just as our kids need to be taught to sift through and evaluate other forms of evidence - eyewitness testimony, historical record and the like.


And that leads to the second false view circulating - that any teaching of any religion amounts to brainwashing.  In my view, the fact that the term is bandied about so freely in the religion-in-schools debate is either a display of ignorance about how religious education is (or can be) approached in modern schools, or else a misleading piece of rhetoric.


Let's assume ignorance to start with - I suppose that hangovers from the 40s or 50s might lead some to assume that any religious education in schools will be rigid, dogmatic, programmatic and allowing of no dissent.  Where belief (or expressions of belief) are coerced, then perhaps this does fit a description of brainwashing, such as occurs under some totalitarian regimes and in some times of war. It cannot seriously be suggested that Christians or the churches currently have the social or political power to coerce belief, even amongst children.  It cannot seriously be suggested that the churches would use a fear-based technique that would bring such fleeting and superficial results.  But do we truly believe that teaching kids the tenets and historical foundation for the world's greatest faith amounts to brainwashing?  Laying out a belief and providing reasons and evidence for that belief is not brainwashing - it is education!  


I suppose there might be some Christian parents who enforce belief in their children through objectionable means - but given that this is a universal parenting problem that spans all beliefs (and lacks-of-belief) - it's stretching things too much to credit this evil to the Christian side of the ledger.  The argument might more strongly be put that atheist parents are brainwashing their children by refusing to present the evidence for Christianity - certainly in the current prevailing culture those children are less likely to see both sides of the debate fairly presented.


Which brings us to the use of "brainwashing" as a rhetorical device.  If the real concern is coercive Christian education, why not say so?  We can understand that we are happy for our kids to learn about Christianity, but not to be pressured into a decision.  We can then truly agree, perhaps, that we want each person to make up his or her own mind by reference to all of the evidence and arguments.  I suspect, though, that this is precisely what many aggressive atheists do not want - they do not want every person to have the opportunity of fairly and individually assessing the evidence for and against Christianity: they want to push any discussion of Christianity out of the public sphere altogether.  They want the field to themselves.


Again, what to do for our kids?  Just as our kids need to know about different types of evidence, and need to learn how to evaluate such evidence, our kids need to know about different types of argument.  They need to be prepared to meet these different worldviews in their school yard, from their teachers, from their teammates.  They need to be prepared to present and defend their own beliefs (even as they are being formed and refined!), while they can carefully assess (and where appropriate, attack!) the beliefs that are being pressed on them.


Now how on earth do we do that!?

A gentle conquest

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.  So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

Luke 4:5-8 

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Luke 13:34 

"[God] cannot ravish.  He can only woo."

C. S. Lewis: The Screwtape Letters 

Jesus had a genuine opportunity to obtain, in an instant, all the kingdoms of the world (Jerusalem with her children included).  The devil's claim that he can give Jesus all those kingdoms is bold.  But Jesus does not deny the truth of that claim.  He does deny the legitimacy of the devil's methods.


Jesus goes even further, though, in his lament over Jerusalem.  He longs to gather up the children of Jerusalem, but cannot because "You were not willing".  Truly he will not ravish - he will only woo.


This struck me powerfully this week, as I've been thinking about how we raise the kids in the church where I work, and consequently how I raise my own kids.  I know that Jesus' words are life and light; I know that he is the only way, life and truth; I long for my children to know and love and follow Jesus; I long for my children to experience the joy I have in following Him.


But all that is entirely outside of my control.  If Jesus will not ravish - will not gather against the will of those to be gathered - how can I?  "Outside my control" is very hard for a Dad to handle.  But by God's grace, two things give me comfort - influence and influence.


I have the very great privilege to be able to influence God through prayer.  In writing that I immediately balk at the claim, but I cannot escape the clear words of Jesus:

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. John 15:16

I can and do pray frequently that my children will come to a loving, living relationship with Jesus.  And I believe that this is truly His will for my kids.


I also have the great privilege to be a role model for my kids.  I hope and pray I'm a good role model.  I know that I will mostly fall short, but I pray that I will pass on some of the great hope and joy of life with Jesus.  In this way, I hope that my kids get a taste of the love and goodness and richness of Christian life - of eternal, joyful life-to-the-full.  I hope they will choose freely to surrender to the rightful claims of their God, King and Saviour.  I pray that they choose the gentle conquest that leads to true freedom.

Bedtime prayers ...

Me: "God, thank you that you are kind, and loving.  Thank you that you created ..."
Daughter2: "One, Two, Three, Four, Five" (counting my fingers).
M: "... thank you that we can count.  One, Two, Three, Four, Five"
D2: (giggles)
M: "And thanks that five plus five always equals ..."
D2: "Ten!"  (More giggles).
M: "and thank you that ..."
D2: "Two plus two is four"
M: "Yes, thank you that two plus two is always four.  Thank you for maths."

I never, ever, EVER, thought that I would thank God for maths.

more than words ...

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.  1 John 3:18

Did you see Apollo 13?  If so, you will remember that gripping 4+ minutes towards the end.  After days (was it only days) of things going consistently wrong in space, the 3-man team aboard are re-entering the atmosphere.  Houston knows that they will lose contact with the ship for the 3 minutes it takes to get from stratosphere to splash-down.  Mission control is tense, but not panicked.  But then the 3 minutes pass, and there is still no contact.


In my memory, the film makers slow the pace of the movie to real-life speed.  4 minutes is such a long time.  


"Apollo 13, do you copy?"
Silence.
"Apollo 13?"
Silence.


Radio crackle.  Heartbeats.


And then Tom Hanks' voice: "Houston? ..."


I'm sure that at every screening, every audience member unclenched his fists, sat back in her seat, breathed out long and slow.


The message was being broadcast - it wasn't being received.

Which is a long-winded introduction to the scene at the Oakley house this evening, in which Number Two bounded up to my lovely wife Sally with her hands peaked on top of her head.  "Goodnight Mummy.  That means 'I love you' in Squiffy language" she says.


After the "aww"-moment passed, I started thinking.  We tell our children often enough that we love them - we're broadcasting the message - but are we being received?  


My Eldest understands love through gifts.  I first realised this when she was raging about someone touching "her things".  Aha!  Now some of her other behaviour makes sense!  She loves to give little presents to me and Sally.  She's always at me to buy Sally flowers (I really should listen to her more.)  She always sneaks little things she's been given to school to show her friends.  


Suddenly a lot of the fights between her and Number Two made more sense.  Suddenly I wondered: has she been on a starvation diet for these last few years?  Not receiving the message of love I've been broadcasting?  As she grows she'll see my love for her in the day-to-day things, but for now, I'm trying to speak her language.  I'm praying that, in recent months, that message has been getting through.


And Number Two?  I think she's a cuddler, which is quite alright by me.


I found Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages a really helpful book to understand that Sally expresses and receives love differently from me.  He's also written versions specifically for kids and teenagers.

Chicken, chicken or chicken?

To my Middle Child, everything is chicken.  We had a beef curry tonight, and she asked for more chicken.  We eat roast lamb and her favourite part is the chicken.  We eat grilled salmon and she wants more ... you guessed it ... chicken.  When we have murgh makhani ... you get the picture.


So I guess we ate a lot of chicken dishes when she was forming her view of dinner.  And every time we said "eat some more chicken", it cemented the idea more firmly that the delicious protein-laden stuff in her bowl is chicken.


Which got me thinking about other word associations we use - most pressingly "God" and "Father".  God, in his wisdom, revealed himself in the Bible as "Father".  Since having kids of my own, the sheer weight of that floors me every now and again.  For better or worse, their view of God will be significantly shaped by the way I speak and act.  


Dads: your child's first view of God will be a version of your behaviour toward them and toward others in their presence.  There might be time for their view of God to mature, but you are their starting point.


Will our children see God as absent?  Distant?  Stern?  Loving?  Only interested in rules?  A weak pushover without rules?  Cruel or abusive?  Consistent (or in-)?  Honest?  Selfish (or -less)?

... whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.       Matt 18:6

Where do babies come from?

My baby girl starts sex education tomorrow.  She's 6 (well, 6 and three-quarters).

Of course, I went to the parent information session.  I was a little concerned about what they would be teaching, having heard some of the odd PC-things going on in exotic places like Quebec, Holland and the UK.  Were they going to tell my delicate little flower that I was oppressing her mum?  Would they outline some of the detail of some weird fringe practices?  Would she be finding out about contraception?

Imagine, if you will, my relief when I walked into the staff room and saw where the presenters were from: Centacare.  If a Catholic agency can't tell them to save it for marriage, who can?  (It turns out that they can't tell them that.  Apparently it's values-free sex education - isn't that a contradiction in terms!)  As the presentation continued, my relief turned to support.

Before you both stop reading and start following "Conservative Christian Dad" in the blog next door, let me tell you why - for my daughter at this stage - I support what her school is doing.

The program is tailored for the age of the children.  It covers things like:

• the value of families;
• where babies come from (my daughter will be told that an egg from mummy and a sperm from daddy combine to make a baby, which grows in mummy's uterus.  How the egg and sperm get together is covered briefly for older grades);
• the proper names for all the bits;
• inappropriate touching, private parts, the importance of telling someone.

Most of these things she knows already.  (She has some experience of different family constellations from friends at school and church, and we've always been honest with her when she's asked questions about where babies come from.)  But the two big factors that lead me to support an appropriate level of sex education at her age are: the emphasis on the parent as the main educator; and the frighteningly high incidence of sexual abuse in our community.

One thing that the Centacare program stresses is that Mum or Dad should be the main source of information about the biology and morality of sex.  It is really important to start early, so that kids know that they can come to Mum or Dad to talk about these things.  How early is too early?  Well, when you consider that the average boy will first be exposed to internet pornography aged 11, that schoolyard conversations about sex will likely happen well before that age, and that some girls can start menstruating before they are 10, we parents don't have a lot of time to spare.  Most kids will ask questions to satisfy their curiosity, and will stop asking when they have enough information to be going on with.  The birds and the bees talk is no one-off event; it is a conversation that should span years, off and on.

The second factor that weighs heavily in the balance is the prevalence of sexual abuse in our community.  1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused during the course of their childhood.  Such abuse is made easier when a child does not know whether what is happening is OK or not.  In many cases, the abuse is successfully concealed (for a time at least) because a child feels shame, or thinks he will not be believed, or does not know who she can talk to.  Sensitively dispelling these attitudes (without unnecessary specifics) is surely a helpful step in protecting all our kids.  Even something as simple as ensuring that children know the right names for their private parts can be helpful.  As a criminal lawyer in my former career, I have seen prosecutions fail or charges being downgraded because a child's evidence is too vague or general.

So I support the program - but I won't leave things in the hands of the Education Department or of Centacare.  I do not believe it is possible to deliver "values-free" sex education: what we leave unsaid communicates our values as much as what we say.  I'll be getting involved in the conversation so that I can show her the truth about families, marriage and sex - that God made them good, and as a good gift for us; that he made them for a purpose, and that when we misuse these gifts, we suffer as a consequence.

The Coles car park miracle

I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.  Romans 7:18-19

You know it's going to be a memorable meltdown when it happens in the middle of the Coles car park.  


Go back about an hour, and peace reigns.  We're just arriving at the car park.  My two daughters have agreed to swap car seats on the return journey.


In the present, we have climbed back into the car and Eldest's promise of swapping seats is forgotten.  Each of my little princesses is implacable and very vocal.  The volume is rising rapidly.  It's clear that I need to hold Eldest to her word, and restore peace soon.  But what to do?


The larger part of me is gearing up to issue the ultimatum.  My imagination whirs as I reach for some consequence for disobedience that will secure compliance and quiet.  But for some reason, I pause.


"You know what the right thing is to do, don't you?"  I ask Eldest.
"Yes," she says.  "But I just don't want to do it.  It's too hard."  Her voice is small.  How can she fight herself? She is evenly matched.
So we pray.  All four of us pray together that Eldest will have the strength to do what's right.  We pray that her will can overcome her desires.  That we will wait patiently while she wages this battle.  


Number Two is not quite five, and things are dragging a bit.  I can hear the complaint making its way from her mind to her mouth ...
"Just wait, honey," I interrupt her.  "We need to give Eldest some time.  This is really important.  It's about the sort of person she will grow up to be."
So we wait; and Eldest prays and wrestles.


Then as quickly as it all blew up, it's over.  "You can have my seat."  She speaks quietly, but decidedly.


Battle over; battle won.  Thank you Holy Spirit.