they can tak' our media but they'll never tak' our freeeedooooom!

There's a growing theme among Australian Christians, that our society is 'being taken from us'.

It manifests in the increasing attitudes of "well, you can't say anything godly at all anymore without someone coming in to cancel you". It manifests in the persisting belief that "Australia is a Christian nation (or at least a nation founded on Christian values) and we should keep it that way." It manifests in the insistence that "well, we've seen how feminism and wokeness and the modern sexuality has destroyed our society, so why don't we take it back to the old (Christian) ways?"

There's a desire for a simplistic narrative - a 'back to the basics' attitude. These are mostly voiced by older people, white guys, and people who haven't studied history, or use the term 'woke' as a pejorative.

There's also an exaggeration happening around Christian thought. Christians are increasingly using dramatic language to describe the response to the mores and morality expressions of our faith. It's also interesting that the Christians using dramatic language are frequently more invested in the morality expressions of our faith that are contradictory to those of the world - setting up worldly perspectives as an antagonist, rather than coming alongside them as a friend.

Possibly ironically, Sam Chan's Evangelism in a Modern World addresses the matter of coming alongside worldly perspectives as a friend to the person - not necessarily agreeing, but pushing our friends to think further and deeper about what they really believe.

--

Listening to Majority 54 Podcast the other week - the episode release on the 21st April entitled Political Therapy with a conversation with an author, Monica Guzman whose book I Never Thought Of It That Way. The conversation was around a willingness to listen and understand where people are coming from. Ravi was talking about his older brother and how his older brother seems to have no interest in anything Ravi is doing or Ravi's thoughts on anything, and that he feels that sting quite keenly. Then, recently, he learned that his older brother feels like he already knows everything he needs to about his brother because their mom boasts about Ravi and what he's doing all the time.

One of the points that Monica made was that conservatives feel hemmed in by the media, there's nowhere that promotes a 'Christian perspective' anymore and that gets them on the back foot. They have no interest in the specific stories of individuals - liberals, progressives, non-Christians - because they already feel like they know it all and so they don't need to be told.

From a liberal vs conservative POV, without any faith in the mix, I can see that conservatives would be angry and defensive and just prefer to lump all liberals and progressives in together without seeing them individually: and yes, understanding where the specific person you love is coming from is one thing, thinking you understand where "liberals and progressives" are coming from is entirely another.

From a Christian perspective, though, I feel like Christians should be better listeners; better at tailoring our message and our interactions with the specific individual that we're trying to reach. Not just issuing a "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" notice.

I feel like this is what Sam Chan is getting at regarding how to evangelise, although the cynic in me would have called it "How to Evangelise When You Already Think You Know Everything You Need To Know". Hm. I wonder if I could write a book about that...

the Christian ethos of 'respect'

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I suspect what most Christian men using the "I want respect from my wife" line are saying, intentionally or unintentionally, is that they want to be an authority - they want to be "Christ to their church": unassailable, unquestionable, godlike.

Perhaps rather tellingly, though, I don't see 'treat a man as an authority' as a particularly Christian ethos. I mean, every man since Adam - be he Christian or not - wants to be the authority to the women in his life, whether he was a king with a thousand concubines or an indentured slave who was permitted to couple with a fellow slave (for the purposes of 'breeding stock').

Treating a woman as a person? As Jesus did to the women around him, not only teaching them (Martha) but challenging them (the woman at the well), declaring their faith beyond that of any man they'd met (the Syro-Phoenician woman) and sending them out as his missionaries (to proclaim his resurrection to the men around them)?

That is a unique Christian ethos; distinct in the history of the world before Christ and only existing since due to the influence of Christ on our society - divinity who sent femininity out to proclaim the comity of his resurrection.

transpeople and Christian reasoning

Truly told, I have yet to find someone who can explain to me the anti-trans message of Christianity that doesn't fall back on "male and female He created them". Because He makes, even now, does he not? He knows us in the womb - including those who turn up one gender physically but have the DNA of another gender. He knows and loves those who are hermaphrodite - he created them as they are. He knows and loves those who change sex at puberty through a biological shift (documented examples in many places). He knows and loves His people, whatever skin colour they have, whatever limbs they bear, whatever physical, genetic, or psychological differences they have from the two standard deviations of humanity.

I understand it from a financial POV: church-related schools will lose money and standing when they have to discipline non-Christian students for not toeing the Christian line against 'moral turpitude'.

I understand it from a gender-behaviour POV: if we can't determine who is male and who is female easily, simply, and early, then we don't know whether they're transgressing the 'appropriate behaviours' for their gender group.

But I can't find any reason other than "He created them male and female" - which certainly doesn't mention race or disability, intellectual capability, or anything beyond the basic genetic prototype needed for the reproduction of every person on the planet.

I used to think that maybe trans people were a 'mistake'. That they were a product of the fall, and that without sin everyone would have been born male or female. But that imputes a whole category of people who don't fit the mould into "you are the physical presence representing the existence of sin in the world" which...I can't think of anything less Christ-like, frankly. I feel like that dismisses the variety of humanity that God made, and the diversity of God's vision for humanity.

There's a whole conversation about disability in there, but I don't know how to have it. Yet.

the trauma of Susan Pevensie

People have a lot of trauma over Susan Pevensie.

A lot of trauma.

I just always figured that if Aslan let the young Calormen Tarkhan into The Everlasting Lands, then if Susan wanted to come, Aslan wouldn't stand in her way.

But Susan turns and walks away from Narnia off her own two feet - she doesn't even believe in Narnia anymore, so why would she want to come back - and everyone's on Aslan's case. (Or CS Lewis'.) Lipstick and nylons is the excuse she gives for walking away, not the reason that she was shut out: to Susan these things are more real to her than talking animals and a resurrected lion.

Did CS Lewis have issues with the 'lipstick and nylons' crowd? Sure. But even if Susan worked a perfectly boring job and was your standard 50s office drone, yet turned her back on Narnia, then she still wouldn't be interested in the everlasting lands.

For me, Susan's Choice is the simplest thing about The Last Battle. All the other stuff? The comparative metaphors of fake lions and donkeys and, oh, I can't even remember half of it all? The weird timelines? The stable and the dwarves trapped in their own minds? The talking creatures who ceased to talk? Actual Tash coming for the Calormene guy? That's the fucked up shit.

To me, it's not Susan Got Shut Out Of Narnia, Boohoo it's Susan Chose Something Else, That's Her Right. And Aslan respects that right. He doesn't go and drag Susan back to Narnia; he lets her make her own judgement and walk away from the door instead of stepping through it.

I mean, I have no obligation to leave a party invitation standing to someone who thinks I'm stupid and imaginary.

The other thing is that I'm not Aslan. Is the door still open for Susan? Maybe. But I think of all the times Aslan says "I am telling nobody's story but their own". Which is basically, "Mind your own biz, this is between me and the other person."

why we don't have room for anything they'd recognise as 'love'

There was a conversation over at MF's FB over the statement: "the church should be famous for its love".

And I noted

Where too often "LOVE" is translated a "you're dirty and awful and nasty and should be glad that the God of heaven cares for you (through the [self-]righteous mouthings of his people)..."

I've been wondering the last couple of years that maybe most of us Christians don't actually believe "in Christ alone". There's always a "and you must" clause.

"And you must prioritise the unborn, the nuclear family, the legality of the gospel, the rights of Christians and the church, the moral Christianising of the law, and your life must look like an western middle-class aspirational life...

Do all this in the name of Jesus Christ and you will surely inherit the kingdom of God!"

The bit that I didn't add was:

I am starting to wonder if it's a by-product "fear of losing their salvation by too-close association with The World"? Even (especially?) in certain Christian circles (*coughs*SydneyEvangelicalism*cough*), the implications have persisted that if you follow the "wrong" path on opinions of everything from homosexuality to abortion to transgenderism then your very salvation is imperilled. And yet at the same time, the leaders attempt to reassure me that "my hope is built on nothing less..."

If my salvation is in Christ's hands alone - if nothing I can do or think other than repudiation of His gift of grace will keep me from the love of God (in Jesus Christ) - then I have no fear of walking out into The World and dispensing the love and support that God has graced me with no matter to whom, or even whether it enables further sinfulness in those I love in my actions. His grace is sufficient for me, and also for them, and I trust in that as I witness to others in ways that 'The Church' may not generally approve.

However, if I feel like my salvation (and, indeed, my church acceptance) is based on my reputation within the church, on the way I vote, on my policy opinions regarding hotbutton culture topics, on my association with the right kind of people in a world of sinners...then, yes, I will not just reject the worldview of the world, but reject the people of the world because they represent my likely rivening from the grace of God.