Is the family history?

I recently read an article that made me quite sad about the explicit untruths and inaccuracies that are allowed to be published in reputable publications. It was an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, in which he claimed that those who advocate heterosexual marriage have fabricated a history of the family as a heterosexual institution.

Rather than go on for ages about all the things that bothered me about the article, I’ll just focus on one, the following paragraph:

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel to behold. Its promoters are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that ''if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple''. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

There are some truths in this passage that mask the untruths and inaccuracies of his interpretation of the Bible. I think it’s true that the modern 'nuclear family’ (mother, father and biological children living together) is not itself a Biblically mandated institution. Rather, it is a cultural manifestation of the Biblical principles of lifelong monogamy (Gen 2:23-24, Ex 19:14, Mt 5:31-32), multiplication (Gen 1:26-28), and passing on the knowledge of God and His promises and commands to the next generation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:7, Deut 6:1-9). We must be careful to separate out what is merely cultural from what is necessarily Christian. Sometimes they work together, but often they do not. In the case of the nuclear family, it’s a cultural phenomenon that seems compatible with the Biblical principles. Living in community with other families or generations of an extended family could also work, and in fact the descriptions of the early church in Acts suggest this kind of arrangement (e.g. Acts 2:42-47).

The Bible passage Monbiot refers to here is Luke 14:25-26. In the passage immediately before this (Luke 14:15-24), Jesus had been talking to people at a dinner party at the home of the ruler of the Pharisees, telling a parable of a rich man who gave a great banquet and invited all his friends but when the time for the banquet came, they all sent their apologies because they had work to do, or economic concerns to act on, or family to attend to. So the man had to find other guests among the poor and homeless - those whom respectable people wouldn’t normally invite to a banquet - to fill the house for the banquet. There should be nothing to distract them, and even if there was, they would recognise the value of the offer and accept it.

In the passage in question (Luke 14:25-26), the scene changes to Jesus speaking to the enormous crowds that were accompanying him. But I think Luke wants us to make the connection with the previous passage, as the point is the same. Jesus extends an invitation to everyone, including those who have all kinds of potential distractions, and we must count the cost of accepting his generous and valuable offer.

As Jesus says elsewhere (Mt 6:24), you cannot serve two masters - we either serve Jesus as King, or our family, or our job, or whatever. The same underlying principle was inherent in the command given to God’s people at the revelation of his commandments at Mount Sinai (Deut 6:4-5) - "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength". We are to be undivided. But we are also to love our neighbours (including our family as well as complete strangers) as ourselves, and so Jesus’ challenge to ‘hate’ our own parents and siblings does not absolve us of family responsibility. Our family responsibility rather becomes part of the way we love and serve God and obey his commands.

While it’s true that Jesus did not issue any direct injunction against homosexuality, it’s grossly misleading to say that Jesus perceived 'heterosexual love’ as a ‘threat’. In the passage Monbiot quotes, Jesus was merely warning his would-be disciples that following him would mean they could not let their family get in the way of their allegiance to Jesus and obedience to God. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly condoned faithful heterosexual marriage, as on several occasions he spoke strongly against adultery and sexual immorality. He had hard words to say to the Samaritan woman he met at a well (John 4:1-30), who had been married five times and was now sleeping with someone other than her husband. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus said ‘from now on sin no more’. He wanted (and still wants) people to live God’s way, the way they were created for, walking in the light rather than in darkness (John 8:12).

Book Review: The Language of God (Francis Collins)

A few months ago I wrote that I had started reading Francis Collins’ book 'The Language of God’. I have now finished it! That took a bit longer than anticipated... So I thought I’d write a review of it, having also given a verbal review of it at training this week.

As I said in my earlier post, and as you can learn from the book’s blurb and Wikipedia, Francis Collins is trained as a physician and geneticist, and was head of the Human Genome Project which did some real ground-breaking work in the late nineties and ended up presenting the world with a complete ‘map’ of the human genome. He is now Director of the National Institutes of Health in the USA, having been appointed by Obama in 2009.

Although it’s called ‘The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief’ it’s not really about trying to prove God with scientific evidence, which can’t ever be done as far as we know. The title is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. What Collins is trying to do is explain why he believes in God and why, for him, being a scientist does not present an obstacle to faith in God. It’s an argument about the compatibility of science and faith more than an argument for faith.

The book is set out in three parts: the first section is about the perceived chasm between science and faith; the second section is about questions of human existence and Collins’ findings from the human genome project and related investigations; and the third section is on the relationship between faith and science in the past, and the options for now, highlighting that even if people insist on choosing between science and God, they are still putting faith in one or the other.

I enjoyed the way the author shared his life story (as I mentioned in my earlier post), and the way he systematically explained his scientific observations and reasons for his beliefs about God and about the world. I found it clearly written and strategically crafted, and the scientific explanations (e.g. how human DNA works) were accessible but not patronising. The crafting of the book intrigued me because, for most of the book, there is no mention of Jesus; I wondered all along “so he believes in God, but what does he think of Jesus?”. That made me quite wary of his argument, not being very sure about where he stood in relation to Jesus. It’s only at the very end of the book, when he has made a very compelling argument for his beliefs, that he finally shares his testimony about how he came to realise that Jesus was Lord, and decided to follow him.

There were several ideas and debates that I thought were set out in a helpful way, for example different world views and objections to religion, and questions about human existence. There was also an interesting discussion of historical changes in the relationship between science and faith especially in relation to discoveries that we now take for granted (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around - a theory which brought Copernicus, its first advocate, strong criticism, and saw Galileo, a firm supporter, tried by the Roman Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death!). I also found the appendix on bioethics a very worthwhile inclusion, as it was generally well reasoned and sensible about issues that tend to be over-sensationalised in the public arena.

I did have a few reservations about the book, though. I’m not completely sold on Collins’ ideas about theistic evolution, and need to do some more investigation before I can come to my own conclusions. But I appreciate his strength of conviction and the reasoning he has gone through to get to his ‘BioLogos’ perspective on the way the organisms of the world came to be the way they are now. He is fairly critical of creationism and intelligent design, however, which has no doubt alienated a lot of Christians who identify strongly with those perspectives. I also thought that leaving his testimony right to the very end, while strategic in one sense, may mean that many readers never read it if they abandon the book part-way through (for whatever reason), and that would be a shame.

I would say it’s a worthwhile read for non-believers who are interested in reading a scientist’s testimony of their faith, as they get the science and the faith reasoned out together. It’s also a good place to go for people wanting to form a view on the evolution/creation debate - but just as one perspective. One would need to read other perspectives also, and make an informed comparison. I’ve been recommended ‘Unnatural Enemies’ by Kirsten Birkett, although this one is also from a Christian perspective.

The journey continues...

Students are people, not numbers

Last week the Macquarie University Vice Chancellor’s blog published a post by Arts Faculty Executive Dean Prof John Simons about the current debate about universities being allowed to widen participation through an abolishment of government caps on student numbers.

There are so many variables and issues involved that it is really hard to work out what’s a reasonable position. But there were a few things that he said in his post that I want to respond to as a teacher of first-year students who wants see students properly cared for.

"What this debate is about, of course, is widening access. It’s about giving people from diverse backgrounds the opportunity to benefit from higher education. It’s about being fair. It’s about making sure we use all the talent available not just some of it. This appears to be scary."
The only scary thing here is the suspicion that it’s not actually about universities wanting to give more people the opportunity to receive a higher education. If universities were serious about wanting more people to benefit from higher education, rather than just be entered into the system, I would expect to be able to see them putting infrastructure in place in anticipation of increased student numbers in order to be able to care for them properly. This would include in particular employing adequate numbers of full-time/permanent teaching staff so that class sizes could be kept at reasonable levels (15, rather than 25 or more!) and so that there could be sufficient staff consultation hours to go around to support students who need extra help (particularly in first year).

"Aptitude for success in higher education is not necessarily the same as aptitude for success at school."
I completely agree with this, having seen a number of my school friends who had not been brilliant at school absolutely flourishing when they got to university. They had increased motivation from being able to choose their own study paths and be accountable to themselves for what they did or didn’t do. However, lowering entrance scores is not necessarily the best way to give increase participation from lower socio-economic backgrounds. There are many other underlying variables that are involved, such as the quality of high schools in such areas, students’  and parents' attitudes to and support for education, and the simple fact of the need to survive financially through university.

Many students who come into university on a lower entrance score are simply not ready for university. It can be a very difficult transition culturally (although recent efforts to implement ’transition programs’ at various universities have helped alleviate this somewhat), let alone intellectually. The problem of maturity can certainly also be true of students who gain entry with higher scores, but would perhaps not mean the difference between passing and failing - just passing instead of getting a credit or higher.

It may be too much to expect students who have not so far achieved well academically to be able to keep up with a full-time student load AND maintain a part-time job (or multiple) AND carry out other life responsibilities, and be able to pass. And so I wonder if granting entry to students who have not so far shown the aptitude at school is giving them a false notion that they will be able to pass their university subjects and gain a degree. So if such students continue to be enrolled, there need to be greater support mechanisms - including financial support - to allow them to spend the required time and intellectual effort to keep on top of the new ideas they are learning and be able to flourish at uni so that they gain the social and intellectual capital to effect positive social change. Otherwise we will just see increased enrolments followed by large numbers of withdrawals, and I don’t think that’s the desired outcome.