MandM » Events

Back from San Francisco: A Belated Report

Matt — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:51:19 +0000

MandM has been quite of late, this is because Madeleine and I have been very busy. With moving house in the midst of Christmas and New Years and Madeleine working part-time in a law firm and so on, we’ve had little time to blog. We are now set up, to some extent, and so this post will be a belated comment on my recent trip to San Francisco.

In November I flew to San Francisco where I attended I attended the Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), The Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), The Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference and The Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL) and American academy of religion.(AAR). While I would love to give detailed commentary on each session, to do so would require several blog posts of inordinate length, instead I will simply summarise what went down.

I arrived in San Francisco at around 4pm on the 15^th. I presented my first paper at 8:30am the next morning. My paper was a critique of Walter Sinnott Armstrong’s arguments against divine command theory meta-ethics. Armstrong contends that the nature of moral obligation is best explained by identifying moral obligations with the natural property of harming others without justification, and, focusing largely on Craig’s work, argues this is superior to divine command ethics. I argued: (a) his argument fails to note the conditional nature of Craig’s (his main target’s) contention that if theism is true moral obligations are best explained as divinecommands (b) Armstrong’s does not provide a better account of moral objectivity (c) Armstrong’s account is not more economical than a divine command theory. (d) Even if it were an economical account, it does not explain various features of obligation such as (i) the social nature of moral obligations (ii) the fact that moral obligations constitute a decisive reason for acting and (iii) the specific moral content of obligations; as well as a divine command theory. All in around 30 minutes!!! The paper was very well received, with several people asking me to forward them a copy. I plan to get it published later this year.

The rest of the morning was filled with me hearing various papers on moral theory and philosophy of religion all of which were interesting and stimulating. These panellists all shared similar perspectives yet were astutely critical of each other’s arguments. Particularly interesting was the dialogue between Baggett and Craig. Some of the issues here were technical and deserve further discussion so I plan to blog on this dialogue in more detail in the future. But in sum: Craig has defended a counterfactual: if God did not exist then moral obligations would not exist. Baggett argued for various reasons that this is too strong; if God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, did not exist, the universe would not exist. To make sense, Craig’s claim needs to envisage a compossible world, which is like the actual world in all respects except that God does not exist, if it’s like the world in all other respects however, then it has all the features of the world God has created – and hence the resources for something like moral obligations to exist. Instead, Baggett contended, one should argue that a world with God provides a better explanation of the nature and existence of moral obligations than a world without God does. This means the theist does not have to argue, with Craig, that there is no adequate secular account of the existence of moral obligations, only that a divine command theory is more plausible than such accounts. Both Craig and Baggett made telling points which I will have to elaborate on some other time. highlight of Wednesday was the afternoon session. A panel discussion of David Baggett and Jerry Wall’s new book “Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality”. This book is the latest defence of divine command theory ethics, recently published by Oxford University Press. Baggett and Walls sketched briefly the content of the book and Paul Copan and William Lane Craig offered critical commentary, to which Baggett and Walls responded.

Thursday started with an excellent critique of evolutionary ethics by Angus Menuge, exploring the relationship between evolved moral dispositions and moral obligations. This was an excellent paper, though I was critical of some aspects of the argument. Next was Frank Beckwith, arguing that the standard liberal view of religion and public life applied consistently rules out state recognition of same sex marriage. I think Frank is correct on this, because, as I have argued elsewhere, the liberal view rules out almost any substantive position on any controversial issue.

However, for me the highlight for me on Thursday was a sparsely attended lecture entitled. The intensionality problems for divine command Divine command theory. The author of this paper offered a very novel and rigorous critique of divine command meta ethics. Seeing there were very few in attendance, I was able to have a really good back and forth discussion with the presenters where I offered several arguments as to why I thought their critique failed. This was probably the most constructive of sessions for myself, and also I suspect, for the authors of the paper.

This was followed by Michael Licona’s response to Norman Geisler. To those who have not followed this debate, Liccona’s recent book on the historicity of the resurrection had raised the ire of Geisler because it suggested that one passage in the Gospel of Matthew might contain apocalyptic imagery and so was not intended by the author to be a literal description of what occurred. Licona gave a pointed rebuttal of Geisler’s position, noting that the claim that the author did not intend to speak literally on a given occasion is not the same as the claim that he spoke falsely.

Thursday afternoon saw Dallas Willard’s keynote address on moral formation.

Friday saw things begin to wind down a bit. Instead of starting at 8:30 the sessions began at 9:45 enabling me to get some much needed rest in the morning. At 9:45 I attended a stimulating session and discussion on the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. This was followed by Mike Austin and Doug Geivett presenting their new moral argument for theism. Jeremy Evans gave a paper on the defeat of evil, and the conference finished, for me, with a very technical but interesting discussion of Michael Tooley’s deontological argument from evil. I tried to contribute significantly to the discussion at most of these sessions, and believe I was able to give good feedback as well as sharpen my own thinking considerably.

Apologetics Conference
After Willard’s address on Thursday. I was driven to the first Presbyterian church in Berkley for the beginning of the annual EPS apologetics conference. The plenary session took place in a two storied auditorium and overflow lectures were also set up outside in the hall. As one of the speakers I was given a meal, and then along with other speakers like Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, were given front row seats to watch Willard’s opening address.

After this I attended a breakout session by Richard Hess, an eminent Old Testament scholar. Hess had been on the panel discussion with me in Atlanta last year, and delivered a talk similar to his one in Atlanta. Hess argued the command in to destroy the Canaanites is, directed towards those in the cities. Unlike modern societies, an ancient agrarian society vast majority of people lived in the countryside and only the elite lived in the cities. He argues further that many “cities” mentioned in Joshua such as Ai and Jericho were probably forts. I have reservations about the plausibility of this position, but took the opportunity to discuss some of these with Hess and while I am not completely convinced of his whole thesis I am more sympathetic now to some aspects of it.

On Saturday I gave my address to the apologetics conference. My session was at the same time as Paul Copan and Douglas Geivett’s, so I did not expect a massive turnout. To my considerable surprise, not only the entire room full, but many people had to stand out and crowds even overflowed out of the room into the hall. After my session several students instead of attending the next session stayed with me for almost another hour asking me questions. I felt really humbled that so many people wanted to hear the thoughts of an obscure theologian from New Zealand. What stood out about this conference however was the passion and commitment of the audience. They genuinely wanted to learn and you felt you were really helping and assisting them with what you did. Often in NZ when I speak the audience is secular and hostile, or Christians more concerned with emotion than intellect; it was invigorating to find lay Christians passionate for intellectual stimulation of this sort.

Society of Biblical Literature
Only a few hours after my talk at the EPS apologetics conference I was part of a panel on theological blogging for the society of biblical literature (SBL). The SBL conference was enormous, and took place over at least three hotels and a three storied conference centre in San Francisco. Almost everyone of any stature in the US or UK who studied anything to do with biblical literature was present.

My talk at the SBL was very different two the previous two. My audience were mostly theologians or bible scholars who were into the latest electronic gadgets, and my paper was largely reflective on my experience as a blogger. The panel also was a bit disjointed, the speaker before me was speaking on “Is Blogging at 3 am scholarship” but instead she spent around 15 minutes talking about occupy wall street and the occupation of Palestine and added that her blogging on these issues lead to her writing columns for the Huffington post. The speaker after me had been unable to turn up, so instead we got a demonstration of some new technology, followed by an interview with the founder of academia.edu. Both Joel Watts and Jim West have blogged their thoughts on my session.

So that’s a very brief summary of my trip: I attended several other interesting and stimulating sessions but space prevents elaboration. The week proved to be very productive. While there I was asked to contribute to an upcoming book on virtue ethics, and one publisher expressed interest in a possible book by myself and Paul Copan. I also, to my considerable surprise, received word an article of mine will be published in the Westminster Theological, and a short time later I discovered a second is to be published in Philosophia Christi. The conference has also given me several ideas for different papers. As I joke to my friends I have so much writing to do that all I need is a college to provide me with institutional backing.

More Mistakes: A Rejoinder to Randal Rauser

Andrew — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:36:19 +0000

For those who aren’t aware, there has been something of a “debate”, but what I’d prefer to refer to as an “in house discussion” between Randal Rauser (Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary) and myself.

The discussion so far can be found here:

My initial article was Randal Rauser’s Mistake: A Defense of Calvin’s Doctrine of Election

Rauser’s response: Calvinism and the Arbitrary Camp Director Revisited: A Response to Andrew

Before I begin, I should point out that I have been on the Kapiti coast for the last week at a TSCF (Tertiary Student Christian Fellowship, a cousin of Inter-Varsity) retreat where I was without internet. Hence it’s only in the last day that I’ve learned that Professor Rauser has kindly taken the time to respond to my initial article. So I apologize for my delayed response.

I would also like to point out that while my intention was to provoke Rauser’s response, it was not to be rude, and I apologize if that’s the impression he has received. I have a great deal of respect for Rauser, particularly given (as I pointed out in my last article) that he is a Professor of Historical Theology with an obvious background in analytic philosophy, while I am a mere undergrad with far more ambition than actual ability. The last thing that I want is for this discussion to devolve into the kind of vitriol that plagues almost all other web based discussions of the philosophy of religion and/or theology. I say this, largely because I fear (from the tone of his response) that he has received the impression of ill intent on my part.

Secondly, I appreciate that Rauser took the time to respond to my article, and I appreciate that he also took the time to counter my personal testimony with that of his own.

But now to specifics: How does Rauser respond to my claim that the arbitrariness objection (at least if it is to be an objection) begs the question against Calvin’s doctrine of election? On the face of it, he doesn’t seem to challenge my point that God may not be acting unjustly if we are undeserving of salvation. To the contrary, Rauser seems to admit for the possibility that the tortures may be justly deserved. But if that’s the case, then, as I tried to point out in my first post, there’s no real injustice or immoral state of affairs that obtains if God so desires to instantiate those punishments. Paradoxically though, Rauser refers to my theology as “brutal” and “morally incoherent”. Both of these terms, emotionally provocative as they are, seem to suggest that there is something nasty, horrible, evil (whatever negative adjective your heart desires) about a God that selects some for salvation while selecting others for damnation. But if, as Rauser seems to allow, the tortures are justly deserved, then none of those adjectives can rightly be said to stick. After all, if the tortures are justly deserved, and God decides to carry out those tortures, then God can only be said to be doing what the demands of morality and/or justice require. So wherein does the moral incoherence obtain?

But according to Rauser, I would still be missing the point. After all, he (Rauser) says, the Camp Director Analogy was not intended to show that God, given Calvinism, is “unjust”, but rather that He cannot be seen as “maximally loving”. I see no real reason to deny Rauser the liberty to make this distinction, but its relevance is, at best, unclear.

Thankfully, Rauser does seem to hint at one possible way in which we could interpret this as an objection. He seems to engage in something of a pair-wise comparison between two possible scenarios that are supposed to be relevantly similar to the Arminian and Calvinist conceptions of election respectively.

Scenario 1: The director arbitrarily selects some children for beatings and others for loving rehabilitation.
Scenario 2: The director selects all children for loving rehabilitation.

According to Rauser, were God to bring about scenario 2, we would state that He is more loving were he to bring about scenario 1. There are three things that I have to say to this:

Even if I were to grant this assumption (which I don’t), the most it establishes is that the God who brings about scenario 1 is less loving than the God who brings about scenario 2. But notice that this is not equivalent to saying that God is “objectively unloving” in the sense that we are able to predicate of God (in that situation) terms like “cruel” and “brutal” et al. To get to the conclusion that God is “objectively unloving” which (given the words he has elected to use to describe my theology) is evidently his goal, Rauser would need to show that anything less than complete love for all creatures is tantamount to cruelty. Given what I have hitherto argued regarding the fact that God’s arbitrary choice may not necessarily be unjust or immoral if Calvinism is true, and given that he (Rauser) seems to allow for this possibility, I don’t see how he can plausibly do that.
Once again, it seems as if Rauser pre-supposes the falsity of Calvinism to infer to its falsity. The only way that I can see Rauser’s conclusion (that were God to bring about scenario 2 He would be more loving than were he to bring about scenario 1) would have a shot at truth, is if we assume that the “L” of the acrostic TULIP is false. If the scope of God’s love extends only to His elect, while the rest are totally depraved to the extent of total opposition to God, (the T of the acrostic TULIP), then for Him (God) to leave the elect to suffer the pestilence of the others, is cruelty on His part. Consider by way of illustrative analogy, a father who allows his small child to suffer continuous beatings from school bullies. For the father to fail to remove the child from that situation is for that father to shirk his responsibilities as a father, and to be downright cruel. Now note, I’m not saying that the God of Arminianism is crueller than the God of Calvinism (though that is an interesting idea), I am merely trying to show that the God of Calvinism is at least as loving as the God of Arminianism (a comparatively small task). To sum up then, to establish that scenario 1 makes God more loving than does scenario 2, Rauser has to smuggle in the assumption that the T of the acrostic TULIP is false. So unfortunately, it’s another case of question begging on Rauser’s part.
The final problem for Rauser consists in the fact that much of what he says entails Universalism. If God brings about scenario 2 AND God loves his children in the way that Rauser loves his daughter, then we are left, not with Classical Arminianism, but with Karl Barth’s Universalism. After all, it should be intuitively obvious that a good father will forcibly pull a child out of harm’s way, particularly if that harm is akin to the fire of hell. Suppose, for instance, that a child is sitting in the way of a stampede of elephants. A good father does not sit idly by, watching from the sidelines and protest that the child must freely get up and run. Rather, a good father sprints into the middle and hauls the child out of the way. This kind of causal sufficiency for salvation in conjunction with God’s salvific love for all humans entails Universal Redemption.

It’s not too late Rauser, you need not think of God as a bad father who stands idly on the sidelines while hell bears down on His children. To sinners like you and I, Calvin’s message of Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints ought to be a great comfort. It means that Salvation is a guarantee, and that we needn’t rest on our own failing ability to trust in the Lord. In truth though, returning would be merely speeding up the inevitable. As my Pastor puts it, it’s determined that you will be a Calvinist even if it’s not in this life.

Want to see Matthew Flannagan debate John W. Loftus in America?

Madeleine — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:14:30 +0000

As you all know, Matt and I are going to the US to speak at 4 conferences in November. John W. Loftus is aware of this and in a comment on this blog has suggested a debate between himself and Matt during the 3 days we have spare between conferences – ideally for us 14 Nov. We have had some email discussion with him about this including agreeing that the topic for debate will be something around Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith, maybe, “Is Christianity True?” or something like that.

A couple of groups within the Christian Apologetics Alliance have indicated keeness to see it happen, we have even had small pledges of money towards helping it happen, but so far no one has been able to say “yes, we will organise it” and we need that to happen asap or we are just going to run out of time. So, can you organise it can you offer support towards anyone organising it? Do you want to see it happen? (If it happens it will be videoed)

Hear Matthew Flannagan speak on Moral Relativism, Get a Feed and Watch the All Blacks take on Argentina this Sunday

Madeleine — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:37:34 +0000

Matt will be speaking on Moral Relativism this Sunday as part of Massey Presbyterian Church’s (“MPC”) night service. His talk will look at what it is, what reasons people have for adopting it and why we should be concerned about its pervasiveness in society. The style of talk is interactive so bring your questions.

After the service, MPC will screen the quarter final rugby match between the All Blacks and Argentina. Game snacks will be available for purchase; the proceeds will go towards our impending trip to America. Before the service, the MPC cafe will offer cheap meals (like mains around $3, desserts $1). So come along and make a night of it!

When: Cafe meals from 6.30pm – service starts 7pm, Sunday 9 October
Where: Massey Presbyterian Church, 510 Don Bucks Rd, Massey, Auckland
Cost: Free (unless you are purchasing food)

Facebook has an event page you can use to RSVP and invite others.

“Why I am (not) an Atheist” Hear Madeleine speak @ Auckland University on Monday

MandM — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:40:22 +0000

The Reason and Science Society and Evangelical Union are getting together on Monday to discuss why they believe what they do about God and related things during RSS’ regular meeting time. Any and all are welcome to come and listen and join in the discussion.

Three University of Auckland students representing each club (including this blog’s Madeleine Flannagan speaking for Evangelical Union) will speak for 5 mins each, followed by a group discussion on the issues raised.

What: “Why I am (not) an atheist”
Format: Panel with Q&A
When: 5-7pm, Monday 3 October 2011
Where: Case Room 2 OGGB (Owen G Glen Building)
Cost: Free

Hear Matt’s EPS Apologetics Conference Paper in Advance & Eat 3 Courses for $10 – This Weekend in Auckland

Madeleine — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:01:02 +0000

We are going to the United States in November to, between us, give 4 talks to 4 different conferences that we have been invited to speak at (details below). We need to raise the funds to get there and so far we have raised about half of what we need thanks to the generosity of readers of this blog

Massey Presbyterian Church (“MPC”) has offered to help us put on a fundraising night where both of us will utilise our talents to bring you a three-course meal for $10 cooked by me (I cook see my cooking website Mad | Food) and a talk given by Matt “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands” – this will be a slightly abridged version of the very same talk Matt will give to the EPS Apologetics conference in November so make sure you don’t miss it or you’ll have to fly to San Francisco to hear it!

This event is happening this weekend at the MPC Night Church Service on Sunday 2 October. The starter and main will be served to your table before the service and the dessert will be served after. So please arrive at 6pm to be seated if you are coming for dinner; the service will start at 7pm.

Menu

(Diners choose 1 from each category)

Entree:

Creamy Tomato Soup – home made, mildly spiced (gluten free)

MPC Bread – fresh-baked individual loaf with hummus

Main:*
White Chilli Chicken Enchilada - chicken, cannellini beans and mild mexican flavours in a delicious sauce wrapped and baked in a tortilla (Gluten free option: served without the tortilla on rice)

Beef Lasagne – tasty beef mince, layered with pasta and topped with a cheese sauce

Empanadas – mildly spiced, creamy vegetable and chickpea curry encased in flaky puff pastry topped with poppy seeds, served with chutney on the side (vegetarian) (Gluten free option: served without the pastry on rice)

* All mains served with your choice of crunchy slaw or steamed winter vegetables

Dessert:
Berry Bombe with Boysenberry Coulis – Home made ice-cream with crushed meringue, marshmallows and berries topped with home made boysenberry sauce. (Gluten free)

Chocolate Tiramisu – layers of coffee-rum flavour infused chocolate sponge and cream (alcohol free)

Sticky Date Pudding with Maple Butterscotch Sauce – light, fluffy and so delicious!

Non-alcoholic beverages will also be available.

Donations towards our trip gratefully received

(If you can’t eat a whole three-course meal or you want two of something individual prices are: entree $2, main $5, dessert $3)

Please use the Facebook Page to RSVP and invite others.

MandM in America

12 Nov - University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Madeleine will give a paper entitled: “No Privileges, No Penalties” and the De-Privileging of Secularism” (essentially: what the role of religion should be in public life) to the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture’s Flagship Fall Conference Radical Emancipation: Confronting the Challenge of Secularism.

16 Nov - Evangelical Philosophical Society, San Francisco
Matt will give a paper entitled: “Can Traditional Theism Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong‘s Critique of William Lane Craig?” (essentially: a defence of Christian morality) to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

19 Nov - Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference, San Francisco
Matt will give a paper entitled: “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands” (essentially: an answer to the problem of evil commands) to the annual Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference (Speakers participate by personal invitation only).

19 Nov - Society for Biblical Literature, San Francisco
We will give a joint paper entitled: “Blogging a Short-Cut to Peer Review: How to do it Effectively” (essentially: on using the platform of blogging to influence culture effectively) to the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.

Next Stop America: An Update

Madeleine — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:30:57 +0000

On 8 November, about 7 weeks from now, Matt and I will board a plane heading to the United States of America. Whilst there we will attend 5 major conferences and, between us, speak at 4 of them. We view this as an opportunity to serve God and the body of Christ, contribute to our fields, learn and grow, meet people, make friends, network, pursue employment options, publication options and represent New Zealand and we are really excited and humbled to have been invited.

It is a real challenge for us to get there in terms of finance, my pain disability and the logistics of leaving our children for two weeks but we are determined to find a way. Our teens have stepped up and reassured us they can hold the fort and family and friends will back them up. I continue to work furiously at physical rehab to continue my snail’s pace gradual improvements, we have planned in rests and other pain management tactics. We have fantastic friends who have so far donated us $2,233 towards our goal and other friends who have offered us accommodations within the US that cover the bulk of our time there.

One of the things we are keen to do is to pick up a few more speaking events – be it in the form of faculty seminars, campus lectures, church and community talks – we don’t mind. We do not charge speaking fees, it is not really the New Zealand thing to do and we want to make sure that we are accessible but we do accept koha - donations towards the costs of our trip would be much appreciated.

To that end, whilst we have booked our flights to and from the US and we are locked in to the various conferences we are speaking at/attending we have tried to keep the remainder of our time in the US flexible meaning that we have not yet booked our internal flights and train tickets so that we can stay a few days longer in Indiana or head to San Francisco early or perhaps go somewhere else. We are going to need to book those tickets soon though or the prices will climb too high so if you are keen to organise something contact us.

Our Itinerary

8 Nov – Los Angeles
Staying at least 1 night for a pain rest
9 Nov -
10 Nov – South Bend, Indiana
“Confronting the Challenge of Secularism” Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture begins in the evening.
11 Nov - South Bend, Indiana
“Confronting the Challenge of Secularism” Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture – all day
12 Nov – South Bend, Indiana
Madeleine’s paper “No Privileges, No Penalties” and the De-Privileging of Secularism” at Confronting the Challenge of Secularism” Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture.
13 Nov – ?
14 Nov – ?
15 Nov – ?
16 Nov – San Francisco
Annual Meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and Matt’s paper “Can Traditional Theism Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong‘s Critique of William Lane Craig?” to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
17 Nov – San Francisco
Annual Meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference.
18 Nov – San Francisco
Annual Meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference.
19 Nov – San Francisco
Matt’s paper “Can God Command Evil? The Problem of Apparently Immoral Commands” at the Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics Conference and Matt and Madeleine’s paper “Blogging a Short-Cut to Peer Review: How to do it Effectively” the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature.
20 Nov – San Francisco
Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature (we’re flexible)
21 Nov – San Francisco
Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature (we’re flexible during the day but are flying home in the evening.
22 Nov – will be consumed by flying over the international date zone
23 Nov – Brisbane
From 8:00 am we have 10.5 hours of stopover time to kill (please only consider using Matt here)

Costs
(In NZ Dollars for both of us)

Airfares to and from the US: $2,946.50
Internal flights: $648.38
Internal train tickets: $83.19
Conference Fees:
Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (includes meals): $309.30
Evangelical Theological Society & Evangelical Philosophical Society: $37.12
Evangelical Philosophical Society Apologetics: Free
Society for Biblical Literature: $408.28
*TOTAL: $4432.77
Less money raised: $2,233
*Target still to raise: $2199.77

We have a few fundraising ventures planned here in Auckland which we will announce soon (if you are New Zealand based and think you could help us there let us know) but we are confident we’ll get there. If you feel so inclined you can donate via PayPal in our sidebar or using one of the options on our Support page. If you can’t donate can you Tweet? Link? Like? Share? Someone else might see this who can

Oh and because we get asked it by everyone: the reason we have to pay to attend all but 1 conference we are speaking at is because most speakers are established academics at institutions whose institutions pay for them so the practice is for each professional organisation to charge fees – although we do get a discount for being speakers, attendees who are not speaking pay more. The EPS Apologetics Society is an exception – they granted both of us free entry because Matt is speaking, aren’t they nice?

* We have not yet priced accommodation in Los Angeles, transfers within San Francisco and we do not yet know how long we can couch surf for and where we might need to pay for a few nights accommodation. Then there is food. The goal is to keep the total costs under $5,000.

Sermon on The Parable of the Net (Mp3)

Madeleine — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:34:10 +0000

On Sunday 4 September 2011 Matt preached a sermon on The Parable of the Net in Matthew 13:47-51:

Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked. “Yes,” they replied.

Jachin at Explaining the Bible has uploaded it as an Mp3.

listen to Matt preaching on The Parable of the Net.

Freedom of Religion in a Secular Society @ Auckland University this Monday

Madeleine — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:57:27 +0000

As part of AUSA’s Human Rights week at the University of Auckland, and in association with Thinking Matters, Matt and I will be giving a free public lecture with Q&A on the topic “Freedom of Religion in a Secular Society” on Monday 12 September from 7-8.30pm in Clock Tower Lecture Room 032.

The Facebook page for this event states:

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states:

13 – Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

14 – Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

15 – Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

How should we read these sections alongside idea that New Zealand is a secular society?

How should we read them alongside the viewpoint advanced most notably by philosophers such as John Rawls that religion should be privatised?

Does Separation of Church and State require Separation of Religion from public life?

Can we still have Freedom of Religion in New Zealand and hold to these views?

What approach is just and fair in a pluralistic society like ours?

Analytic Theologian and Ethicist, Dr Matthew Flannagan and Legal Scholar, Madeleine Flannagan (a post-graduate student in Law at Auckland) will give a joint lecture followed by a Q&A session on the topic Freedom of Religion in a Secular Society from 7.00-8.30pm on Monday 12 September 2011 in Clock Tower 032.

A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? Part III Madeleine Flannagan – Law

MandM — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:02:36 +0000

A few weeks ago, as part of Jesus Week at the University of Auckland, Thinking Matters and Evangelical Union hosted an event entitled A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? This event was a conversation between Theology, Philosophy and Law and featured Matthew Flannagan - Analytic Theologian, Glenn Peoples - Philosopher and Madeleine Flannagan - Legal Scholar. The video is still being edited and will be available soon but for now, this 3-part series comprises the written speeches of each speaker.

Madeleine Flannagan – Law

Glenn and Matt dealt with moral restraint; the idea prevalent in our society that those of us with religious convictions ought to keep them to ourselves when we participate in public life.

Often people contend or try to imply that this obligation is required by law. We’ve all heard politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university assert that we are a secular nation and that our commitment to freedom of religion requires a secular public square.[1]

And they are not wrong to a degree. It is evident that something like this ‘obligation’ advanced by the likes of Rawls, Audi, Gaus, et al is present in western jurisprudence – most obviously in that coming out of the United States; you do not need to have studied law to be aware of this, you will have picked up on it if you have watched any American TV.

Separation of Church and State or Separationism?

Most people are aware that the US Supreme Court has interpreted America’s Religious Freedom and Free Exercise laws to mean that religious instruction, prayer, references to God, displays of the 10 commandments, nativity scenes — even where participation is totally voluntary — are banned from public institutions.

This “separationist” reading of the 1st amendment is drawn from US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s “Wall of separation Letter” to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. But it is unlikely that this reading is what Jefferson meant. At the time he was writing in early nineteenth century America, the common perception of the relationship between church and state reflected a long-standing European tradition.

Legal scholar Steven Smith wrote in “Separation and the Secular: Reconstructing the Disestablishment Decision” that,

… At least since the middle ages, scholars and polemicists of all stripes had argued-on both religious and political grounds-that the church should exercise control over the state or-again on both religious and political grounds-that the state should control the church. The common view for centuries had been that an established church was essential to political and social stability.[2]

He added,

… In medieval Europe, for example, kings had claimed, and had exercised, the power to appoint bishops and popes. After the Reformation, the British monarch became the official head of the Church of England, and British government assumed control over both the selection of ecclesiastical officials and the formulation of religious doctrine.[3]

In fact, the Book of Common Prayer, including the 39 Articles, was commissioned and approved by the Crown.

Smith goes on,

… medieval popes regularly crowned earthly emperors and kings, and they claimed (and frequently purported to exercise) the authority not merely to excommunicate but actually to depose those kings. Popes sometimes asserted jurisdiction to adjudicate what were essentially political or property disputes. In England, the Church enjoyed-and still enjoys-official representation in Parliament. Immigrants later imported established churches in some form into most of the American colonies.[4]

The church-state relationship that was familiar to an eighteenth century American was that “governments controlled or directly intervened in the internal affairs of churches, and churches claimed and were formally endowed with governmental powers.”

At the time Jefferson was writing, many US States had established churches; so when the United States Congress promised to “… make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[5] they more likely had in mind that Separation of Church and State is simply the idea that the church should not be formally endowed with governmental powers and the state should not try to intervene in or control the church.

Separation of church and state is not separation of religious beliefs from public life (perhaps this confusion arises because both concepts have the word “separation” in them). The idea that Congress meant something more than mere Separation of Church and State when it passed the first amendment – that Congress meant Separationism — was birthed in the mid to late 20th century – some 200 years later – by the US Supreme Court when it began to hear cases about prayer in schools and the funding of Catholic schools.

Separationism and Separation of Church and State, as we have seen, are different ideas and one doe not entail the other.

Comparitive Jurisdictions

This is not just about the US. Separationist understandings of freedom of religion can be seen in Western jurisprudence elsewhere. There are European cases that exhibit it – even in places like the UK that do have an established church. Many of you will have heard the cases in the media of workers being sent home from their jobs after refusing to follow an instructions from their employers to remove religious jewellery[6] – normal jewellery was fine, just not anything that symbolised God.

The “Liberty Intervening” case is another UK example; a state-Celebrant refused to perform civil partnerships between members of the same sex. Because of her views on marriage, she was found to have discriminated against those couples. She could not appeal to freedom of religion as the court held that her employer’s requirement she perform same sex civil partnerships did not interfere with her ability to worship.[7]

Then there is this case, the summary from the head note explains it clearly:

Summary: The Employment Appeal Tribunal had correctly decided that a counselling organisation had not breached the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 reg.3(1)(a) or reg.3(1)(b) when it dismissed one of its relationship counsellors who refused to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs. Although the law protected a person’s right to hold or express their religious beliefs, it did not protect the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they were based on religious precepts.[8]

The last line seems to suggest a denial of the existence of a right to freedom of religion. In the judgment of the case this summary note comes from, Lord Justice Laws gave a lengthy spiel on its views on religion in public life, despite going on to rule as just stated, part of that spiel was:

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.”[9]

Sounds all good and equal right? – keep this quote in mind as we move onto the next case.

Earlier this year, 2011, this next one hit the news here in New Zealand; it was that of Eunice and Owen Johns, Christian foster parents, who had been disallowed from continuing to be foster parents after telling a social worker that they could not state that homosexual conduct was a good thing to one of their charges. The Johns took a case on the grounds of discrimination against their religious belief – which they understood they were free to hold to and live by – and they lost.

In their case the Lord Justice Munby quoted Lord Justice Laws’s lengthy spiel in McFarlane and Relate Avon Limited, including the quote I said to keep in mind, and after doing so they said: “We respectfully and emphatically agree with every word of that.” Then the court offered as its basis for refusing to let the Johns be foster parents,

“In the circumstances we cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society. We preface what follows with the obvious point that we live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”[Emphasis mine.]

So basically, it is the Court’s position that all viewpoints are equal – they referred to “religion” and “any belief system” BUT! (channelling some Orwell here) secular viewpoints are more equal than other viewpoints — and to suggest otherwise is to advocate for a theocracy.

Religious Freedom in New Zealand

So that all said about other countries; how does Freedom of Religion work for us in New Zealand?

Now, obviously NZ has its own laws and it is not bound by international laws and jurisprudence, but, if and when we do get some cases on these issues (we have not had many at all so far) it will be jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada – the latter’s Bill of Rights arguably operates the closest to ours – that our judges will look to this body of jurisprudence for guidance in interpreting our laws because many of the same questions and factors come in to play in these western nations with a common law history and more litigation on this topic than we have had.

NZ Rights and Freedom law expert, Paul Rishworth, makes the point, and I think he is right, that as a group or belief system increasingly dominates as a majority in society there tends to be a rise in litigation over rights of minority groups. This is because the smaller they get the less the mainstream cares about their rights being infringed. Rishworth expects that we will see a rise in religious freedom cases in New Zealand in the future because of this.[10]

This is why it is important for us to have this conversation now, for us to be thinking about what the Church’s, what our response to the ideas being discussed here tonight are and what sort of Jurisprudence and public policy we want to see be developed here in NZ. [Other organisations in our society are as I documented in The New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists and the Privileging of Secularism. The “NZARH” has published a statement of aspirational ideals for the New Zealand state on their website. Entitled “The Tolerant Secular State” the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.]

Central to these church-state debates are questions around which circumstances governmental accommodation or endorsement of a religious practice or idea amounts to coercion of a dissenter from that practice, and is therefore, a violation of freedom of religion.

It is here that questions of religion in public life come to the fore. Does the guarantee of freedom of religion entail that religion be regulated to the private sphere with the state adopting and privileging a “secular” perspective on the grounds that this is allegedly neutral towards religions?

I will argue it does not; especially not in New Zealand. Let us turn to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Bill of Rights Act

What sets our freedom of religion clauses in our Bill of Rights apart from, say, the US Constitution, is that we do not have an establishment clause. Further, we do not define religion narrowly nor do we view narrowly its expressions.

There is one other interesting aspect to how NZ has approached this issue (and no, I am not talking about the fact our Bill of Rights Act is a simple statute).

Our freedom of religion clauses are contained in three passages, sections: 13, 14 and 15 – the placement of section 14 between sections 13 and 15 was deliberate. Let’s look at each.

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. [Emphasis mine]

Now in law when you see a list of things separated by commas in the same section of an Act, as you do here, you know that Parliament is meaning to place these things on par with each other and is meaning to suggest they have a sort of equality or sameness to each other. Unless the text explicitly says otherwise, they have to be treated and weighted the same.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights then protects equally not just religion but thought, conscience and belief.

The nature of what “belief” is is what I want to focus on here.

No New Zealand cases under s13 have yet defined religion or belief – although we have a definition in s21(d) of the Human Rights Act “ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions” and in other legislation.[11] A judge is likely to look further afield than this to be sure that the definition is appropriate for the legal issues in this particular area of law.

International and comparative Jurisprudence has some definitions specific to this area. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Travaux Prepetoire states that ‘belief’ entails “such other beliefs as agnosticism, free thought, atheism and rationalism”.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) supports this view and adds (sounding a bit like Rawls) that “coherent views on fundamental problems” will qualify as beliefs.

Similar definitions can be found in the jurisprudence of other western jurisdictions. Comprehensive secular viewpoints count as ‘belief’ and the State is required to protect and treat them equally with religion.

Whilst s 13 deals with what you are allowed to think and believe s 14 is about finding out more and sharing what think and believe:

14 Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. [Emphasis mine]

Note that your right to seek, receive and impart information about what you believe, is stated absolutely and without limit as to location; it entails that both private and public forums is what is meant. This is bourn out in s 15, the section that covers what you do with your beliefs:

15 Manifestation of religion and belief

Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private. [Emphasis mine]

You can act on your comprehensive secular belief and/or your religious belief in public or in private – again the wording is broad and unlimited.

So if freedom of religion entails that public policy discussions and administration cannot include religious considerations – that religion must be excluded from public life to safeguard religious freedom – then parity of argument suggests that freedom of ethical belief – such as secular humanism, agnosticism or atheism – precludes ethical beliefs in public policy considerations. We’re supposed to treat beliefs equally afterall.

In fact, s 15 gives proponents of religious beliefs and secular beliefs the same rights to express and manifest their belief, teach them, share them, practice them, live in accord with them, in public without limitation. The Bill of Rights allows – no, requires – parallel arguments either way.

So holding that in mind, take a look at the Education Act 1989 (just read the italicised parts if you find legalese confusing):

77 State primary schools to be kept open at certain times
Except to the extent that—

(a) a school term commences on any day other than a Monday or ends with any day other than a Friday; or

(b) a school is lawfully closed pursuant to section 129C,—

every State primary school shall be kept open 5 days in each week for at least 4 hours each day, of which hours 2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon shall be; and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character. [Emphasis mine]

78 Religious instruction and observances in State primary schools
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 77, if the school’s board for the school district in which the school is situated, after consultation with the principal, so determines, any class or classes at the school, or the school as a whole, may be closed at any time or times of the school day for any period or periods exceeding in the aggregate neither 60 minutes in any week nor 20 hours in any school year, for any class, for the purposes of religious instruction given by voluntary instructors approved by the school’s board and of religious observances conducted in a manner approved by the school’s board or for either of those purposes; and the school buildings may be used for those purposes or for either of them.

Basically, section 77 states that all teaching in a state school must be secular. Section 78 provides that if you want to bring religious teaching into a state school you have to go to the board, have consultations, officially close the school and bring in volunteers… Equal treatment of viewpoints much?

[The justification for this affront to the Bill of Rights, involves a jurisprudential move utilising a Rawlsian approach and the operational clauses of the Bill of Rights Act - sections 5, 4 and 6. I do not have time to go into how this works here tonight, perhaps another time.]

The only reason the lack of parallel argument is accepted and that some of what you have heard tonight is news is because so many people, including the church, accept the false claim that secular beliefs are neutral and that permitting religious beliefs to be out there in public, in our schools, expressed our government would be somehow tipping the balance towards a bias – privileging one viewpoint over the others – and that that would be unjust. What is unjust and biased is the claim that in order for the state to discharge its duties under the Bill of Rights to treat public expressions of ethical belief as being on par with religion, it must privilege secularism and relegate religion to the private sphere.

[1] For a definition of secular in this context see Matt’s citation of Robert Audi in Part I.
[2] Steven D Smith “Separation and the Secular: Reconstructing the Disestablishment Decision” (1988-1989) 67 Tex L Rev 955, 963.
[3] Ibid 962-63.
[4] Ibid.
[5] First Amendment of The United States Constitution.
[6] In 2006 British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida was sent home from work after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] ICR 890, [2010] EWCA Civ 80; Nurse Shirley Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons. In April 2011 the two joined forces in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: Nadia EWEIDA and Shirley CHAPLIN v the United Kingdom - 48420/10 [2011] ECHR 738.
[7] Ladele v Islington LBC (Liberty Intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [2010] 1 WLR 955.
[8] McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, [2010] IRLR 872.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Paul Rishworth “Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion” in Paul Rishworth, Grant Hushcroft, Scott Optican and Richard Mahoney (eds) The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2003) 277-307.
[11] C.f. s 2(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.