US Creationists And Climate Change Denialism

What’s With Them Rednecks ?

It is occasionally noted during discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that Creationists are a stronghold of AGW Denialism. For example, The Guardian (UK) ran an article in April 2009 entitled “Just What Is It With Evangelical Christians And Global Warming” citing a survey from the Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life which showed only 34% of US White Evangelical Christians accept the AGW hypothesis.

Here is an extract from the Pell survey of 1,502 Americans, which has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%

Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW:

Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Don’t Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: Yes 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%

What Is The Correlative Factor ?

Given that Pew found that the rate of acceptance of AGW amongst the Evangelicals was significantly lower than that of the general population and in view of the fact that Creationists would be more strongly respresented in this group than the others, it is fair to assume that the correlation between Creationism and anti-AGW exists. This being the case, what is the correlative factor ? What is it about US Creationists that predisposes them to reject AGW ?

The Wall Street Journal of Sept. 28, 2007 ran an interesting article, “Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals”. In this article the views of pro- and anti-AGW Evangelicals are canvassed and the following anti-AGW viewpoints/rationales given:

- Senior US Evangelicals believe that AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message. A similar argument has been advanced by Cardinal Pell of the Catholic Church in Australia.
- Theological reasons advanced against AGE by certain Evangelicals.
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.

In my opinion the correlative factor between Creationists and anti-AGW is that of political allegiance to the Republican Party, the third factor cited in the Wall St. Journal article.

Creationist and Republican

The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In the 2008 US General Election 73% of Evangelicals voted Republican according to the Pew Research Centre in this article, Voting Religiously

Republicans, Republican Pastors and AGW

The Republican Party is haven and wellspring for anti-AGW ideology.
Environment Magazine in Sept/Oct 2008 carried an article entitled “A Widening Gap: Democratic and Republican Views On Climate Change”. In data, data sourced from Gallup Polls showed that only 40% of Republicans subscribed to AGW compared to 72% of Democrats.

In a similar vein, Pew Research Centre in Oct. 2009 found that belief amongst AGW is very low amongst Republicans. In April 2008, Pew found only 27% of Republicans subscribe to AGW, dropping to 18% in Oct. 2009. The comparitive figures for Democrats were 58% and 50%.

Despite the disparity between the Gallup and Pew figures, both polls make clear that Republicans are far less likely to subscribe to AGW than Democrats.

To summarize the Pew Data:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.

In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.

Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively

Disseminating Republican AGW Denialism To Creationists

The Religious Right (RR) has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions to members and sympathizers. These TV and Radio networks are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative and more pro-Republican than the younger members.

AGW represents a massive challenge to the economies of the West, addicted as they are to chronic over-consumption. For the Republican Party, with its array of prominent financiers and backers from Big Oil, AGW represents a second and even more immediately serious challenge which is how to maintain the legitimacy of unlimited Oil Production and Consumption. AGW represents a threat to the power, money, authority and thus the very survival of the Republican Party. These challenges can only be met by de-legitimizing AGW.

Fissures In The Religious Right Over AGW

From the Pew figures it can be seen that Evangelicals, and hence Creationists, are less likely to reject AGW than the average Republican. (34% vs. 22% approx.)

During the 2008 US Federal Election campaign, fissures in the Religious Right began to appear as younger members began to assert their agreement with the AGW hypothesis and pressure Evangelical organisations to adopt AGW platforms and practices.

The younger Creationists turned to the Biblical concept of ’stewardship’, a centuries old cross-denominational position on mankind’s relationship to the environment to support their notion of ‘Creation Care’ and argue for an AGW-friendly agenda in the RR media and secretariat.

For Senior Evangelics acceptance of AGW represented a second-order heresy of ‘turning Democrat’ the party not only of Al Gore, whose entire political career was predicated around the environment and Climate Change, but also associated in their minds with Gay Rights and Abortion.

Those that control the RR, with their established links to Republican politicians and centres of influence use theri position and control of RR resources to broadcast their anti-AGW opinions at the expense of pro-AGW opinions to the Evangelical rank-and-file.

The Contempt Of The Left For The Bible And Christianity

It is sometimes posited by left-leaning journalists and bloggers that the Creationists are anti-AGW for theological reasons: that Creationists believe the Bible teaches anti-AGW, or that Creationists are simply anti- or non-scientific because the Bible, itself putatively an anti-scientific document is the arbiter of truth for them.

Such leftists group Creationism and anti-AGW as equally non-scientific beliefs. Creationists are held to be innocently or defiantly ignorant of good science. A contempt for Creationists is apparent among many leftists, prominent in this contempt being the general refusal of Creationists to accept the Theory Of Evolution as incontrovertible fact. This contemptuous tone is very evident in the Guardian article cited above.

The contempt of leftists for Creationists leads them to attempt to locate the reasons for Creationist anti-AGW sentiment in the Bible, a document leftists love to mock as being non-scientific, not least because it is the source for the Creationist position.

The desire of leftists to mock and ridicule the Bible thus causes them to overlook the most obvious reason for US Creationists being anti-AGW. They are Republicans.

Theological ‘Proofs’ For Anti-AGW

To be fair to leftists, it is absolutely true that theological ‘proofs’ are used by certain prominent Creationists to argue against AGW.

But the quality of these ‘proofs’ is very poor, suggesting that theological argument is being coerced from the Scripture by certain Creationsists in order to to buttress a political (anti-AGW) position, rather than being derived inductively from Scripture. These Creationists are trying to force the Bible to say something that it really doesn’t say.

In short, anti-AGW interperetations are being retro-fitted onto Scripture by those with motive to coerce such interperetations from the Bible.

A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW is very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers as it allows them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole and stave off leadership and/or policy challenges from younger members.

Consequently, senior RR members allow such ‘proofs’ airtime or print space and leftists gleefully pounce on these theologically impoverished proofs to support their own bias, that the Bible is anti-Scientific and to give them further excuse to ridicule Scripture and Christians (not that they generally need much encouagement).

But again, to be fair, most leftists do not have sufficient Biblical literacy to properly evaluate theological argument.

Theology and Anti-AGW

The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.

The US Evangelical organisation Cornwall Alliance, a faith-based ant-AGW advocacy group, strongly infer that the Dominion of Humankind over Earth means that Humans can only ever be an agent for improvement in the natural environment and never an agent of destruction.

Cornwall, quoted in the Guardian article say:

Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God’s image, to add to the earth’s abundance… Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth… While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated… Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

The concept that humans can only ever exercise a positive effect on the natural environment is not taught in scripture. What is taught is that it is God’s mandate and gift to humanity that we, of all creatures, have the primary responsibility for the care of the planet and the most capacity to enjoy its beauty and wonder, as it was prepared very much for mankind’s enjoyment, but not solely for that purpose, as other scriipture goes on to tell us.

Other creationists teach, as did for example John Shimkus, a Republican House Of Representatives member testifying before the US House SubCommitte On Energy And The Environment in March 2009, that since God is sovereign, only He can destroy the planet, not humanity, thus AGW cannot be real.

Shimkus also ingeniously posited that AGW cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood, which God said He would not do. This ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).

Theologically Agnostic To Climate

Finally on climate and theology, it has been sometimes posited that Evangelicals are anti-mitigationist because they believe in The Rapture (thus it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate) or because they are looking forward to the destruction of the planet beause that’s when Jesus will return.

It is plain that the first belief should not be correlated to anti-AGW as it renders the entire debate moot, while the second could easily lead to a pro-AGW position because it makes Jesus’ return more likely to be sooner.

To Summarize

Creationism correlates to an anti-AGW belief because Creationists are Republicans.

Creationists are less likely than most Republicans to be anti-AGW because traditional Christian concepts of stewardship undermine the Republican position that humans are not responsible for Climate Change.

Theological arguments in support of anti-AGW exist but are theologically impoverished. Their role is to reconcile the political beliefs of Republicans with the Bible, but do not successfully do so.

Is There Anybody Graham Richardson Does Not Know ?

Dog Bites Man

I found it utterly unsurprising that Graham Richardson was connected in the web of contacts centering on the colourful Michael McGurk.

That Will Be $264,000 Please

What services is Graham Richardson, Lobbyist, offering his Property Developer clients, just one of whom has paid him more than a quarter of a million dollars in recent times, and his contacts in the ALP ?

Well it’s cash, both ways.

Richardson uses his contacts in the NSW ALP to engineer Property Development approvals, rezonings whatever. Once the NSW ALP State Kleptocracy approves the rezoning, Richardson is paid. Later on some donations find their way into Sussex St. coffers.

As The Daily Telegraph reported:

He [Richardson] chirpily reported to the committee that he does advise clients to donate to the Labor Party and the Liberal Party although he was unable to really explain why his clients were donating hundreds of thousands to NSW Labor but meagre amounts to the Liberals.

Why does the ALP use Richo ? Contacts, does not keep records, utterly discreet, trusted by the ALP.

Richo is untouchable. He fronts a Parliamentary Inquiry, tells us how he….does business….and swans off laughing his considerable guts out.

The Naked Latte

As the perceptive Pablo noted in this Lavartus Prodeo thread, the Planning Department bureaucrats who attend the court of Richo at various Leichhardt coffee shops are also ex-ALP Ministerial personal staff or aspiring ALP candidates. This fact reveals a further layer of nepotism in the ugly charade of government perpetrated by the Tripodi/Obeid NSW Inc mutant spawn of Bob Carr….

…which the current NSW Planning Minister Kristina Kenneally only fosters by studiously ignoring any and all meetings of her Planning staff with the voracious Richo, thus allowing the racket to flourish. And Ms. Kenneally was championed into her position by (who else) Joe Tripodi.

Richo, it appears, was on the outer when Frank Sartor was Planning Minister. As the links in this post above show, Richo’s contacts with Planning department have ballooned in line with his bank balance since Sartor gave way to Ms. Kenneally as Planning Minister in Tripodi’s last reshuffle…all of which taken together shows Kenneally is a cipher for Tripodi, which means that Richo and Tripodi have a friendship/business relationship/mutual enrichment society in operation.

Here’s the NSW power relationship succintly put in an excellent article by David Penberty Of The Australian, “Declare state of civil war, kill the factions”

When Rees took over from Morris Iemma last year he used his first press conference to promise a “fresh start” and “a red-hot go”, then, at his second presser, said pathetically that he’d been given a list of names by caucus to assemble the front bench and gave Tripodi a promotion.

Tripodi is running NSW. Heaven help us.

The Government We Deserve

I voted Debnam last NSW State election. Even though he was an unimpressive candidate, Bob Carr’s horrendous legacy, the current NSW ALP, run by Joe Tripodi, was too disgusting to contemplate.

During the election campaign, Stateline reported Debenham ‘does not have the confience of business’. Only following the disgraceful Wollongong Council/State ALP/Property Developer scandal did the general public know what that really meant. Richo is feeding off the same rotten system.

Al Gore Is Not A Hypocrite

Are You Eating Your Fox News ?

My Dad, mindful of my political health, wanted me to check on some things about Climate Change that Al Gore said. Specifically, that a British Court had ruled that Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was incorrect in eight of nine specific assertions and that Al Gore was a personal hypocrite on Carbon usage. In this way, Dad hoped to cleanse me of wrong-thinking on Climate.

He’s Wrong But Right

Here’s an article I found in ‘The Times’ of London Internet Edition which talks about a court case in which a British judge was asked to rule on whether Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was ‘scientific’ and could be shown to school-children.

The judge found that:

1) What Al Gore said was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of Climate Change.

In other words the judge agreed that Climate Change occurs through man-generated Carbon pollution (car exhaust, coal-fired Power Stations etc.)

2) But the judge also said that some of Gore’s claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

So, according to the judge, Al Gore is basically correct and anthropegenic Climate Change is real, though some of his specific claims were exaggerated. That means that the British judgement supports the climate change thesis in direct opposition to how my Dad heard the story which is that the British judgement contradicts the Climate Change thesis.

People Who Live In 20 Room Mansions Shouldn’t Fly Around In Private Jets

Dad also wanted me to look into claims that Al Gore was a hypocrite because he wantonly consumes Carbon as Boy George and Ultravox once consumed eyeliner.

I found that there is no evidence that Gore is a hypocrite in regard to his personal Carbon usage. Here’s an article that I found summarized below:

Al Gore’s home is a huge mansion. It used to use 12 times more energy than the average home in Nashville, where the Gore’s live, but it used no more energy than other houses of similar size in the same area.

However, the Gores purchase Carbon Offsets, i.e. pay people to plant trees to consume CO2. By doing this, the Gores’ nett carbon footprint is zero.

Since 2007, the Gores have remodelled their home, installing solar panels, rainwater tanks, geothermal heating and energy efficient light globes. They also pay a premium on the energy bill ($432 per month) to source some of their electrical power from renewable energy. This would equate to about one-sixth of their electricity bill if this bloke’s calculations can be believed.

Another specific claim is that Gore recklessly guzzles Carbon by flying around the world in a private jet (perhaps simultaneously bathing in a spa of bubbling petrochemicals and quaffing raw Diesel from Crystal Bowls).

First, Gore does not own a Private Jet. He flies on regular commercial flights most of the time. However, he is a former US Vice-President and thus receives occasional death threats. On these occasion, or when his schedule is so tight as to demand it, he flies in a private charter jet and for these flights purchases carbon offests.

Finally Dad claimed that Gore always leaves all the lights in his house on. The only thing I could find about this was that he did not turn ALL his mansion lights off during Earth Hour one year. OK he probably should have, but this is nitpicking. He did turn off his major lights. And at least he purchases Carbon Offsets.

Overall, given the above I would say Al Gore is not a hypocrite. If everyone did what the Gores did our homes would be more energy efficient, More use would be made of renewable energy and there would be more forests and trees due to extensive purchase of Carbon Offsets.

Yet Again

So once again, data bought to my attention by a Climate Change sceptic actually supports the climate change thesis.

The Power Of A Good Lie

I think the smears against Gore, guilelessly repeated by my Dad, are a good example of the power of propaganda. A few omissions here, a few Chinese Whispers there and by the time middle-class Australia hears about it, Al Gore is transformed from Patron Saint Of Climate Change into to pint-size planetary disaster, a kind of Godzilla-sized sentient chimney belching CO2 from behind the controls of a personal coal-fired 747. In short, a scarlet hypocrite, who must therefore have his own secret agenda for personal aggrandisement, power, money and/or fame.

Probably Gore did choose the ultra-worst case doomsday scenarios to deliberately alarm us into thinking about Climate Change. In doing so he has provided fodder for his enemies, but the additional and unrelenting smear campaign directed against him shows that someone, somewhere has a lot to lose by acknowledging, as the British Judge did, that anthropogenic Climate Change is real.

The Truth About Bugs

Just started a new contract in my day job as a Software Engineer.

Most of the Dev team have English as a (far distant) second language. On my first day I noticed a quotation in Chinese in the Dev area prominently written in Texta on an erasable whitewall. The English translation underneath it made quite a disturbing accidental Haiku:

If you think you dont have bugs
You already have bugs
Bugs are in your brain

I guess that would account for those incessant tiny far-off chomping noises.

Hu’s On Trial. Why? No Hu.

The best explanation I have seen why Steven Hu of Rio Tinto has really been arrested by the Chinese Government (smokescreen explanation: spying) is given by the World Socialist Web Site in a very good article “Arrest of Rio Tinto executive points to deepening economic crisis in China”

I think it is quite undisputed that Hu and Rio Tinto generally, are more than likely, as the Chinese allege, to have paid bribes to Chinese officials and businessmen for access to economic data. This is merely standard practice in Asian business-government relations.

Where Hu has run into trouble is that the Chinese government has only recently elevated sensitive econmic data to the level of ‘State Secret’. The rules have changed but Hu didn’t change his business methods.

The Sydney Morning Herald noted that the reason the Chinese have made economic data a state secret is that they are worried about the state of the global economy as much as anyone else. This concern was elevated following the collapse of two Chinese sharemarkets, weaknesses in exports (which have led to massive job losses in China) and capped off by the onset of the global financial crisis from September last year.

As WSWS explains Hu has got into trouble because of the central importance of the Chinese Steel sector and the very high prices China is being forced to pay for forward deliveries of iron ore. Chinese industry is highly dependent on low costs for inputs and insider knowledge, such as Hu obtained, disadvantages China in these very sensitive price negotiations.

The planets aligned badly for Hu and he has paid the price.

China is not picking on Hu because he is a foreigner. A Chinese national, the iron ore head of a large steel company Shouguan, Tan Yixin, was also detained (on July 7, two days after Hu) as well as Hu.

Same System New Masters

Recent comments from Julie Bishop that Kevin Rudd should not have permitted the visit of Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, supported by Phillip Ruddock, show that the Liberal Party sacrifice all principle at the altar of the great god, Money. Now that China rule the world, or are very much on their way to doing so, the Liberal Party would prefer, as they do for the United States, that China should remain beyond criticism.

Bishop’s comments hearken back to the silencing of Australian Green Senators by John Howard in regard to Chinese Human Rights abuses in Tibet when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Australia in October 2003.

The power dynamics of world politics are changing and interesting times are ahead for Australia. The principled stand of Foreign Minister Stephen Smith who allowed Rebiya Kadeer to enter Australia against vocal Chinese wishes, points to a distinct possibility that disobeying China will have painful ramifications for Australia in the future.

Under the hegemony of The US and the The West, the rest of the world had to obey or be punished. It might soon be our turn to eat the same humble pie albeit served with larks’ tongues and Hoi-Sin sauce.

Utegate and the ANAO: Swan’s Wise Monkey Sees No Evil

The Australian National Audit Office has completed its report into Utegate, clearing Swan and Rudd of any impropriety and fingers Grech as the villain in the piece while also commenting adversely on certain issues in Treasury office procedures not directly connected to Utegate

If you ever wondered how the Federal Government might spend $225,000 (ANAO p.35) you can read the report, magnificently entitled “Representations to the Department of the Treasury in Relation to Motor Dealer Financing Arrangements” here.

Swanning Through The Inquiry

While I agree with ANAO that Grech has abused his position as a public service official by leaking documents to the opposition, the ANAO report does not adequately address the evidence that Swan used his position to advance John Grant’s application to OzCar. This was one of the central allegations of the affair. Swan is a lucky boy.

What Have You Got Against Swan ?

As I detailed in my original post on Utegate, “Not Your Average Constituent” the criticisms that Swan faced over Utegate were over process, not outcomes.

All agree and it is a matter of fact that Grant did not receive any money from Ozcar. Nevertheless a review of events surrounding John Grant’s OzCar application prima facie showed that Swan championed Grant’s file.

A range of commentators from George Megalogenis, regarded as non-partisan (on Insiders 21st June), Bernard Keane of Crikey (of the left), Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald (on the right) and others (’Red’ Kerry O’Brien of the ABC; David Crowe, Aust. Fin. Review below) have noted that Swan was mighty economical with the facts in Parliament when he described assistance rendered by Treasury to John Grant as no different to any other person.

The ANAO Investigation
Explosive testimony of Godwin Grech, the Treasury official in charge of OzCar, at a Senate Estimates Committee hearing on July 19th, implied that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan had sought to engineer a favourable outcome for a Labor Party donor, John Grant, in regard to his application to OzCar. A major parliamentary debate occurred in which Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the Opposition demanded Rudd resign on the supposed basis that Rudd has misled parliament.

Rudd denied that he had acted improperly and the basis of Grech’s testimony, an email purporting to come from the Office of the Prime Minister, turned out to be forged by Grech himself.

Subsequently, as the ANAO states in the preable to its report:

In two letters dated 19 and 22 June 2009, the Prime Minister requested a
performance audit of a range of matters relating to representations to the
Treasury regarding automotive finance arrangements for car dealers. In
response to these requests, the Auditor‐General decided that ANAO would
undertake a performance audit under section 18 of the Auditor‐General Act 1997
(Auditor‐General Act). The audit objective, based on the matters raised in the
Prime Minister’s correspondence and in the Parliament, was to examine and
report on:
• any representations to the Treasury since October 2008 from all sources
regarding automotive finance arrangements for car dealers, including
any made in relation to John Grant Motors;
• the nature of these representations;
• the manner in which the representations were responded to by officials,
having regard to any relevant standards and procedures; and
• any related administrative matters that came to attention.

ANAO on Treasurer’s Office Interactions With Grant

When questioned in Parliament on June 4, Swan said of his interactions with Grant:

It is the case that Mr Grant made representations to my office, and he was referred on to the SPV, just like everybody else.

Swan’s contacts with Grant were definitely NOT like ‘everybody else’.

Grant was the ONLY OzCar applicant to have received a phone call from Swan.

Swan said that the only reason he called Grant was because Bernie Ripoll, the MP for Oxley had asked him to phone Grant (ANAO p.42) and that if any other MP had approached Swan and asked them to call the dealer then he would have. This defence has the advantage for Swan of being untestable. We just have to take his word for it, and ANAO does.

Ripoll was the MP that Grant had contacted in regard to OzCar. Although Ripoll was not Grant’s MP (Rudd is), Grant had worked in a motor dealership in Oxley for many years and knew Ripoll.

After speaking to Grant, Swan asked his Departmental Liason Officer, Andrew Thomas to contact Treasury (i.e Grech). Thomas contacted Grech who called Grant. Grech then contacted Thomas who then also called Grant personally.

Thomas then called Grech and conveyed the fact that Grant knew Rudd to Grech.

ANAO did not mention that of all applicants ONLY Grant received phone calls from the Treasurer himself, his personal staff AND Godwin Grech, the operator of the OzCar facility, nor did it mention that all of these calls were received by Grant on the same day.

Later that same evening Thomas emailed Swan on the progress of Grant’s application including details of what Grech planned to do for Grant, then contacted Grech to inform him that such an update had been sent to Swan. After un update on Grant’s file from Grech a week later, Thomas informed Grech that the updates were being forwarded to Swan at his home address.

Grech testified to ANAO that when he rang Grant, Grant seemed very familiar with the Prime Minister and Treasurer referring to them by their first names, Kevin and Wayne. Grech also commented that Grant projected a total expectation that Grech would fix his problem.

All of the above gave Grech the clear picture that Grant was a person of special interest to Swan and possibly Rudd and that therefore Grech should take a special interest in advancing Grant’s file.

I find myself in agreement with Grech.

If I were Grant I would have felt very assured by such rolls-royce attention especially since several other dealers who made OzCar inquiries via their MPs received absolutely no phone calls or assistance whatever.

For example, Victorian car dealer Graeme Nelson contacted his local MP, Sharman Stone on March 31 who then contacted Mr. Swan. Absolutely nothing has happened for Graeme Nelson since.

For many other examples, see David Crowe, Chief Political Correspondent for The Australian Financial Review on 24-Jun-2009 in his article, ‘Some Dealers Are More Equal Than Others’ which patently shows that not every enquiry from a car dealer about Ozcar was treated the same.

Thomas’s Trivia

Thomas admitted he told Grech that Grant knew Rudd and Swan, but said he mentioned it in an offhand way, as mere trivia. ANAO appears to have accepted this uncritically (ANAO, p.86).

ANAO did ask Thomas why Grant’s application was the ONLY time he specifically indicated to Grech that updates on an application were going to Swan’s home computer or, since it was apparently a standard work practice, why he specifically indicated this at all..

Thomas replied that he had meant to indicate to Grech that it was not necessary to bother Swan with further updates on Grant’s file, realised his email was not clear on this and intended to, but did not, telephone Grech to clarify.

I found Thomas’ explanation on this plausible as, by Feb. 27 Swan had been fully appraised that Grech was expending the maximum possible effort on Grant. There was nothing further Grech could do, having personally passed Grant’s contact details to a financier, except escort Grant personally to the doors of the Royal Australian Mint and load up a Ute full of gold bars.

But OTOH, it is perfectly understandable that Grech interpereted Thomas’s remarks to mean ‘keep Swan informed because he’s really interested in this one’. This is the most natural meaning of Thomas’ remarks given his highly assiduous attention to Grant’s file.

As to Swan’s concern over Grant’s application, ANAO accepted Swan and Thomas’s testimony that Swan was purely motivated by a desire to get the crucial OzCar financing verhicle up and running as a means of protecting Australian jobs given the economic downturn. (ANAO p.15).

I would say ANAO is being willingly naive.

The clustering of attention given to Grant, such attention given to no other dealer, and the emphasis on personal contacts in the interactions between those involved indicate, as Grech said, that Mr. Grant is ‘not your average constituent’.

This becomes clearer when examing the next phase of Grant’s application which is the discussion of Grant’s case in Grech’s meetings with Ford Credit.

ANAO and Ford Credit

ANAO chastises Grech for his actions in raising Grant’s file in his meeting on Feb. 23 with Ford Credit. Ford Credit wanted access to the OzCar SPV, a financing facility comprising more than half a billion dollars of government money. At that meeting the case of Grant was ’substantially discussed’ with Ford Credit and Grant’s mobile phone number provided to Ford Credit.

ANAO, chastising Grech said:

as the commercial arrangements with Ford Credit and
other financiers that were expected to participate in the SPV had not been
settled, it was inadvisable for Treasury to do more than either referring dealers
to potential financiers known to be active in the market, or asking the
contracted Program Manager to provide assistance.

(ANAO p.20)

ANAO feels that Grech’s interactions with Ford Credit may consitute a Public Service Code of Conduct violation:

ANAO’s examination of the implementation phase of the policy also
raised serious questions as to whether the Code of Conduct has been breached
by Mr Grech. Specifically, ANAO’s audit work included examination of
evidence that indicated:
• confidentiality about dealings with Ministers and their staff was not
maintained in relation to important elements of the development and
implementation of the SPV, and the handling of some representations
referred to Treasury by Ministers or their Offices;
• some of the email communications and interactions with third parties
were inappropriate;

ANAO does not mention that Andrew Thomas of Swan’s personal staff had been personally appraised by Grech that he intended to raise Grant’s file with Ford Credit, nor does ANAO mention, in this context of chatisement, that Thomas specifically informed Swan that Grech intended to do this. Nor does ANAO comment that Thomas in fact enthusiastically commended Grech for his assiduous care of Grant’s application, including this improper raising of Grant’s file in the Ford Credit meeting.

One can only learn this by reading Grech’s testimony in the Appendix of the report.

ANAO is correct to chastise Grech for raising Grant’s file with Ford Credit. But Grech informed Thomas, who informed Swan, of his intended actions. No objection was forthcoming; rather praise!

Grech was right to comment:

It was really at this stage that I formed the view that Mr Grant was not your average constituent.

Grech knew he was doing wrong and was getting praise for it from Swan’s office.

Here is the text of Charlton’s enthusiastic Feb. 27 email to Grech in which Thomas should be aware Grech has violated the Public Service Code of Conduct:

‘Godwin, we really appreciate this. Just so you are aware these emails are going through to the Treasurer’s home number’.

Here is Charlton’s Feb 20 email to Swan alerting Swan to the alacrity of Charlton and Grech’s response to Grech:

“‘Treasurer, both Godwin Grech and I have spoken to John Grant this evening.”

ANAO, Grech and Dealer 7

It seems that ANAO is quite happy for Grech to take ALL the blame for Treasury irregularities in the OzCar affair as far as Grant’s application goes. It is very willing, too willing in my view, to completely exonerate Swan and Thomas.

The most powerful indication of this is ANAO’s finding of improper comduct against Grech in its description of the case of “Dealer 7″ whom ANAO alleges Grech gave favouritism to on the basis that Dealer 7 is a Liberal party supporter and donor. (ANAO p.42)

What ANAO does not mention is that Dealer 7 was ringing Grech three or four times per day on the progress of his application and threatening to commit suicide should his application for financing fail. In addition members of Dealer 7’s family were ringing Grech also to beg him to grant the application. Grech claimed he raised Dealer 7’s political affiliation with his contact at Credit Suisse, also a Liberal Party supporter in an effort to stop a suicide from happening. (ANAO, p. 93)
Grech had raised the issue of Dealer 7’s suicidal state with about half-a-dozen superiors and colleagues but they gave him no advice on how to deal with the matter.

Once again, one is left to Grech’s testimony to find any record of these facts.

Grech Deserves His Punishment

Grech forged an email and has improperly tried to engineer the downfall of Rudd, abusing his trust and position, so he deserves serious punishment. But it appears to me ANAO is being a little too willing to load Grech with blame to the exclusion of others and that it is actually ignored information germane to his defence.

It is almost certain that Grech has been a Liberal Party mole within the public service. Rudd no doubt wishes to punish him for this. ANAO cannot be unaware of Rudd’s intentions. I think, based on the omission of evidence favourable to Grech in regard to Dealer 7, that ANAO is wishing to serve the political interests of Rudd by providing him with ‘impartial’ evidence of Grech bias towards and service of the Liberal Party.

This undeserved, or at least unnuanced, allegation of bias in the case of Dealer 7 has the additional effect of drawing attention away from Swan’s championing of the Grant file.

Reality Check

As a personal reality check I decided to email/research the five media identities I had read who had indicated a belief that Swan had championed Grant’s file and see if they still held that opinion. Of those five I found that one, Bernard Keane of Crikey had indeed been moved by ANAO to the ‘Swan-is-clean’ camp
and that John Warhurst of ANU and George Megalogenis of The Australian felt as I did, that ANAO did not clear Swan.

Bernard Keane’s change of opinion is here, ‘Rudd and Swan Totally Exonerated By Auditor-General Report’

George Megalogenis’ opinion on ANAO/Swan can be read in his Blog Post comments at Liberal Mole Now Strife Of The Party, replying to me aka Reverse Bungee

John Warhurst was kind enough to respond to a personal email inquiry. He said despite ANAO,

I haven’t changed my mind basically. I still think there was some differential treatment of Grant and there is probably still more to come out. We may never know the full story. I don’t regard the Auditor-General’s report as the last word. I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

In Brief

Here’s how I deduce Swan championed Grant’s file:

Let’s say you or I contacted an MP and said we wanted the Treasurer, in the midst of the flamin’ GFC, to give us a personal phone call. What would the likely answer be ? For crying out loud that’s Grech’s job, not Swan’s.

What makes Grant think that Swan (known as ‘Wayne’ to Grant) will
call him back ?

Why did Swan call Grant and no other dealer if not because of their personal relationship based on Grant’s donations/fundraising for Labor?

Why did Andrew Thomas call Grant and no other dealer ?

Why is Thomas so active in contacting Grant and Grech (several times) and reporting back to Swan all in the same day (in fact most of this activity occurs in just a few hours) ? In one day Grant gets calls from the Treasurer, his personal assistant and Grech (Mr. OzCar).

Grech cooks up a scheme to help Grant involving improper approaches to Ford Credit and worthy of formal Public Service censure according to ANAO and runs it by Thomas. Thomas praises him for it!

Isn’t Grech absolutely correct at this stage, given all the above
in deducing that Grant is not your average constituent ?

After giving Grant’s mobile phone number to Ford Credit, Grech reports back to Thomas again. Thomas is not concerned about the obvious impropriety and emails Grech saying ‘Godwin, we really appreciate this.’ Who is the ‘we’ that greatly appreciates improper conduct involving Ford Credit: Thomas and… ?

Utegate hits the fan. Swan disappears from view. Why?

Swan gives one interview in Utegate week and refuses to answer pertinent questions about his relationship with Grant. Why ?

Swan will not say how many dealers other than Grant that he personally called. Why ?

Where Dat Swan ?

Swan went to ground, as did Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, in the week following the Utegate scandal making himself unavailable for media comment, except for one ABC radio interview. For an innocent man he acted very guiltily. At least Swan did one interview whereas Abetz did none. But when Swan was being interviewed he tried his best NOT to answer questions.

Knowing What The Boss Wants

ANAO ingratiates itself its political masters by not asking too many hard questions about Swan’s championing of Grant’s file and accepting uncritically superficial explanations from Thomas and Swan.

ANAO is doing as Swan exasperatedly told ABC Radio to do: ‘ask the right questions’, which are not the ones that examines Swan’s relationship to Grant and the effect that had on his OzCar application. It then went on to load Grech with all the blame for Utegate and delivered his head on a platter to Rudd by reporting a tunnel-visioned version of Grech’s use of Dealer 7 Liberal Party’s links.

ANAO wrote it’s report with its eyes half-closed, but its ears well open. It has acted an an exemplary public service Wise Monkey “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (except whatever the boss wants).”

More Real-Life .NET C# Interview Questions Mid-Level Programmer

Blokes and Blokettes:

Here are some questions I was asked by a Consulting company for a mid-level programmer’s position for a .NET C# Web Developer role:

1) Can you have Multiple Inheritance in .NET ? Why did the language designers decide to exclude it?

1a) What is Encapsulation ?
Ans: I gave the classic answer which is that Encapsulation is the OO concept that a class contains both all the data it needs plus all the methods it needs to operate on the data. I was stunned to be told I was incorrect. The interviewer went on to describe what I would call ‘aggregation’. See below.

1 b) As to why Multiple Inheritance is not supported in .NET, here is a great answer from a the Microsoft Architect David Chou, .NET and Multiple Inheritance.

The basic answers are:
- .NET is a multi-language platform. Not all languages can be easily tweaked to support Multiple Inheritance.
- It would decrease cross-language library interoperability via the CLS
- Increases language complexity e.g. resolving inheritance ambiguities e.g classic ‘Diamond Problem’
- Complexity reduces readability and maintainability

AND There is no solution provided by Multiple Inheritance that cannot be solved by other means.

2) How can you simulate Multiple Inheritance in .NET?
Ans: By aggregation. Let’s say you wanted to simulate multiple inheritance of classes B and C into a new class A. What you do is instatiate instances of B and C as nested (inner) classes inside A. Now you have access to all of B and C’s members inside A.

The answer I gave was that Multiple Inheritance can be simulated through implenting multiple interfaces, which has been an acceptable answer elsewhere. This interviewer rejected it saying Interafce implementation is an example of polymorphism, not a way to simulate multiple inheritance.

3) What’s an abstract class ? Compare it to an Interface. Why would you implement an abstract class?
Ans: You would implement an abstract class if you wanted to provide a partial implementation of a class, yet leave some details to the final implementer. e.g. Framework classes are often implemented as Abstract Classes.

4) Let’s say you had a Framework Class (source code not available to you) and you wanted to extend it. How would you do it.
Ans: If Sealed class use Method Extensions

5) Building on the above, what if the class was not sealed and you wanted to implement a method which had an identical name to one in the Framework Class. Assume the original method is NOT virtual. What would you do ?
Ans: Use ‘new’ keyword in the method signature.

6) Let’s say you wanted to provide a new implementation of an existing method and the method is virtual. How would you do it.
Ans: Provide new implementation in sub-class using keyword ‘overrides’

7) Can you instatiate a class with some methods abstract ?
Ans: No. A class with any methods abstract must be marked as abstract and cannot be instantiated.

8. Provide the UML for the following scenario. Demonstrate knowledge of UML for class inheritace, interface implementation, aggregation, association.

9) What is the keyword ‘volatile’ used for ? Surely you want the most recent result available to you at all times. Shouldn’t all variables be marked volatile? Why or why not?

10) What is a delegate ? Provide some examples of how they are used.

11) Write the code that would enable you to update all the TextBoxes situated on a Panel with the data from one row of a GridView when that row is clicked.
Ans: Custom Event and Handler

12) Given a class B which inherits from class B, in which order are the constructors executed if you instantiate an instance of Class B using new B() ?
Ans: A constructor is called first then B’s constructor.

13) What is the effect of compilation debug=true in web.config ?
Ans: Generates debug symbols in pdb file, but also, and this is what he was after, it generates one file per class in the Temporary ASP.NET files folder. In a large project this is a huge amount of disk space consumed and can lead to all your disk space being consumed.

14) What is the effect of selecting ‘Debug’ from the Configuration Manager in Visual Studio.
Ans: They said ‘nothing’. I’m going to have to look this up.
Yeah, so what the guy was getting at is that the Configuration Manager has a ‘Debug’ setting by default, but it doesn’t do anything until you activate it by selecting options that are associated with it. One of those options is compilation options, which you can set to ‘debug’. But just selecting Configuration debug from the drop-down menu doesn’t generate pdb symbols automatically. You have to set up the debug configuration to actually do this.

Other things that a Configuration in Visual Studio can do are described in a book extract here . You can target seperate config files for each Configuration, select a build order for your projects, a different start page for your app, exclude and include different projects in your build and so on.

15) What is ViewState ? What can you do about a page that is heavy on View State ?
Ans: View State allows Web Apps to emulate stateful behaviour. It contains the encrypted value of all ASP server controls on the page and their original values. It can be turned off through control attributes and Page Directives. If ViewState is very heavy you may decide to use HTMLControls. These are not server controls and do not contribute to ViewState. You can also use IIS Compression which reduces Request size by 90% or use custom compression on the request i.e. you implement it say using gzip in the Application-level events.

Hearts And Minds

Just finished watching Episode 2 of the SBS series “Liberal Rule” entitled “Hearts And Minds”.

The story of this episode was how Howard tried to remake Australia into both an expression of the mythic Australia living in Howard’s own consciousness and to implement cherished Industrial and Economic reforms dear to Howard’s philosophical heart. In sum the episode was about how Howard attempted to make Australia into his personal paradise; where Australians would believe the things about Australia that Howard personally believed and work in the economic framework Howard personally believed was best.

It was a story about how one man attempted to implement a personal vision for a nation.

‘Hearts And Minds’ was very effective in showing how the Liberal Party became a vehicle for Howard’s personal beliefs and philosophies. As disturbing as it is that Australian politics could be so totally dominated by a single person, that every proposal of government for a decade in a supposed democracy emerged from a single mind, there are simple reasons to explain how this came to be.

Howard The Messiah

The first is the credibility and power of success. The Liberal Party in particular is a ‘messianic’ party, to use George Megalogenis’s characterisation. It believes its only business is to rule, it does not function well in opposition and while in opposition casts about for the messiah to bring them back to the promised land of power.

When Howard won the 1996 election, he gave the Liberal Party power after 13 years of Labor government. Those 13 years were like eons for the Liberals. Marooned like Marvin The Paranoid Android at the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe for 20 billiion years, it was the first 10 billion years that were the worst with the second ten billion years also being the worst.

When Howard delivered power, his was the leadership for ‘as long as he wanted it’ as Nick Minchin said on the night. Delivering victory and power after such an elongated time in opposition, Howard also won the right to set the agenda for the Liberal Party.

Building on this, Howard’s personal machiavellian streak led him to progressively purge the Liberal Party and public service of dissenting opinion. One of Howard’s first acts was to sack any Departmental Heads he felt did not think like him, establish his alter ego Max Moore-Wilton as head of Department Of Prime Minister and Cabinet and direct all of the public service through his Maxness. ‘Tempered’ as Howard said, by his long and personal rejection by his own party for more than a decade, Howard bought a disposition 50% cold poison and 50% colder poison to the leadership. The only way to survive in Howard’s government was to toe the line. Thus the Liberal Party under Howard almost exclusively contained yes-men, toadies and like minds to Howard. Nothing else (Peter Georgiou a significant principled exception).

As Don Watson noted of the Keating-era view of Howard in opposition, ‘Howard was shrewder than his colleagues’ but the depth and brilliance of Howard’s finely tooled strategic mind to the end of securing personal power became a thing of marvel. Australia had no idea how superbly Howard would and could manipulate and wield power until we had seen ten years of his government.

Mungo MacCallum calls Howard ‘The Stonefish’: nothing to look at, unassuming, easy to underestimate, but absolutely deadly, vicious in the strike and a superb hunter of incredible rapidity when it counts.

Howard’s prestige and power was magnified by bringing home the 1998 GST election, which he bought home assisted by Beazley’s failed ’small target’ startegy. Winning that election, on a new tax of all things showed again Howard’s strategic brilliance. He became not just party leader but Liberal Emporer. Two more election wins against crippled and untalented Labor opposition made him a demi-god. His word was law.

‘Hearts and Minds’ effectively illustrated how the Liberal Party was Howard’s personal vehicle in the conclusion of the episode by playing numerous excerpts of Howard speeches where he said “I have always believed…’ followed by a policy pronouncement. The government belonged to Howard and he intended to reinvent or – I think Howard would say ‘return’ – Australia into a John Howard utopia after 13 years of leftist Labor vandalism.

Correcting The Record

One of the most interesting parts of the doco. for me was Howard’s view of the ‘Culture Wars’ which he described as ‘correcting the record’. The record that Howard wished to correct was what he viewed as a treacherous, unfair, immature, damaging view of Australian history promulgated by Keating’s coterie of leftist elites, the ‘black armband’ view of Australia’s history, that Australians had something to be ashamed of in our past.

In particular, Howard nominated Keating’s 1992 Redfern Speech (here on video) given for the Australian Launch of the International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples. Here is the content that Howard found objectionable:

it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion.

It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask – how would I feel if this were done to me?

As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

Now, Howard says that he agrees and recognises that Australia’s Black History is a ‘blemish’ on an otherwise great history, but he also said during the doco that Keating’s remarks ‘did great damage’ and that one of his great goals as Prime Minister was to ‘correct the record’.

In my view this shows that Howard cannot reconcile what he intellectually recognises to be the truth about Australia’s race history with hi semotional need to believe in a heroic settler myth. In truth he prefers the truth about Australis race relations history to remain untold, hushed, swept over. Just speaking the truth makes Howard’s imagined record incorrect. And speaking the truth needs correction, namely Howard’s chocolate-box version of Australian History.

Howard cannot face the truth on this issue. It is too personally confronting for him, because he personally identifies with the supposed nobility of the British settlers and pre-war Australians who were happy to hunt and kill Aboriginals, to steal their children, and made plans for the Aboriginal race to die or be bred out.

Why Take Any Notice Of The Bible ?

Introduction

This is an essay I did for a Diploma-level subject at an Australian Bible College. It got an ‘A’, so it must be good

Why Do I Take Notice Of The Bible ?

I take notice of the Bible because it is God speaking and God speaking to me.

The Bible claims to be the written record of God speaking to humanity. If this is true, then the Bible is both authoritative and necessary for spiritual life.

By ‘authoritative’, I mean that the Bible has the right or power to command obedience (Milne, 1998, p.26). By ‘spiritual life’ I mean that the Bible instructs us how to enter into right relationship with God, that through the Bible we learn about God’s will for our lives and that the Bible instructs us how to grow in spiritual maturity and insight (Grudem pp. 116-119).

Phrases such as “God said” and “God commanded” fill the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 2:16, Ex. 9:1; Lev 12:1; Num 5:11, Josh 1:1, Judg 1:2, 2 Sam 7:4; Jer 66:1) which affirms that God’s speech and directive word was written down by His prophets and disciples beginning with Moses (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, pp. 138-140) (see Ex. 24:4 referring to Ex 20:22-23:31, Is 8:1, Jer 30:2). Similarly the New Testament (hereafter NT) attests that its own contents are the commands and words of God. For example, Jesus taught that He was bringing God’s message to Israel, that His teaching is superior to all those who preceded Him and is eternal (Matt 24:35; Matt 5:21-22; Matt 15:24).

While it is one thing for the Bible to claim to be the word of God, it is reasonable to ask how this claim can be tested. In my view the authenticity of scripture can be known by the person of Jesus, crucially hinging on His resurrection. (1 Cor 15:13-14)
As Milne puts it:

‘The resurrection is central to the entire Biblical revelation…To
deny it is to empty faith of all content and value’ (Milne, 1998, p.169)

Jesus claimed to be God. This can be seen in many ways including the unique way in which he expressed His relationship of sonship with God, His acceptance of worship and His jaw-dropping appropriation of the name of God through His famous ‘I AM’ statements (McDowell, 1986, pp. 89-102).(esp. John 8:58ff). Since only God has power over life and death then God’s action to resurrect Jesus ratifies His teaching and claims, especially since Jesus had the audacity to stake the authenticity of His teaching on His statements that He would rise from the grave Matt 12:36-42; John 2:18-22(Rom 1:3-4; Acts 2:29-36; Phil 2:9-11)

Given that Jesus’ teaching is ratified by God, let us then consider Jesus’ teaching on the Bible. I will consider this in three parts: The Old Testament (hereafter OT), the Gospels and the remainder of the NT

Jesus endorsed the entire OT as scripture, affirming the accepted categories and hence contents of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44 NIV). He rebuked the Pharisees for nullifying the OT by their man-made traditions and had complete confidence in its plenary inspiration, even on obscure points such as the death of Lot’s wife. He used the OT to settle points of doctrinal contention, to provoke thought about Himself and passionately defended its verbal inspiration by stressing that not a jot or tittle of the Law could be “dropped out”. He saw his own ministry as confirming and establishing the OT. (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 141; Pinnock, 1985, pp. 37-39) Jesus high view of the OT is also demonstrated by how he constructed and understood the course of His Messianic ministry in relation to it. In this I agree with Milne that Jesus submitted to scripture, in distinction to Pinnock who, rightly affirming the scriptures’ witness to Jesus, then places Jesus in relative freedom to them. (Milne, 1998, pp. 41-42; Pinnock, 1985, p. 42).

As God, Jesus’ own teaching as contained in the Gospels are, by definition, scripture. There then remains to demonstrate why the remainder of the NT, written and/or sanctioned by the apostles, is also scripture.

The key to judging the apostles as inspired writers is in recognizing the special commission and empowerment given to them by Jesus. The commissioning of the apostles took place at the Passover Feast prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. They were commissioned to testify about Jesus using the teaching from the Father that Jesus had passed to them and were also promised additional truth by the agency of the Holy Spirit. After His resurrection Jesus gave the twelve a special endowment of the Holy Spirit to carry out the task of proclaiming this teaching. (John 15:27; John 17:8; John 16:12-15; John 17:20; John 20:21-23)

As Erickson points out, there is a strong sense in which many aspects of Jesus’ commissioning of the twelve apply to believers as a whole (Erickson, 1983, p. 251), but this does not permit us to ignore the localized context of the original commissioning or the manner of the training of the twelve through their three years of intimate personal engagement with Jesus. Jesus personally chose the twelve then employed rabbinical methods of training which impressed on them the fact of being groomed to be carriers of His teaching (Lewis and Demarest p. 144) Jesus also gave the twelve privileged, deeper instruction. (See Matt 13:16). Viewed thus, the Passover passage constitutes the climax of their training – a real handing-over of the task of teaching, training and proclamation.

The apostles clearly understood that they had received the delegated authority to teach with the authority of scripture. Paul distinguished between apostolic writings and the general insights available to the common believer and described his epistles as “the Lord’s command” (1 Cor 14:37; 2 Cor 13:3). He instructed his letters to be read to all believers, who were then exhorted to stand firmly on the truths therein. Those disobedient to Paul could righteously be excommunicated. Peter affirmed Paul’s writings as scripture, who for his part, submitted himself to the apostles of Jerusalem to confirm his own apostolic credentials. (1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Thess 2:13-15; 2 Thess 3:14-15; Gal 1:11-13; 2 Pet 3:16; Gal 2:1-10; 2 Peter 3:2; Eph 3:4-5 )

The connection between apostleship and authoritative teaching is keenly appreciated by Paul who takes pains to demonstrate that he too fulfills the criteria for apostleship by being an eyewitness to the resurrection, by the reception of teaching directly from Jesus the Lord and by the reception of a divine commissioning from Him (Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p.106). (Gal 1:11-15; 1 Cor 15:8-9; 1 Cor 9:1)

While not all the books of the NT were written by the apostles, all were validated by the apostles because they were written under apostolic sanction. As Warfield puts it,

“God’s authoritative agents in founding the church gave them
[the non-apostolically authored NT books] as authoritative to the
church which they founded.’ (Reformation Ink website, 2007)

Our friend has also objected that the Bible was written by ordinary people. In what way can human writings be said to originate with God? Theologically, this point addresses the concept of ‘inspiration’.

Inspiration

Milne canvasses the major conceptions of inspiration, namely dictation, accommodation and supervision (Milne, 1998, pp. 49-51). While the Bible does contain instances of divine dictation (Rev 2:8), the model which best fits the biblical data is that of ‘supervision’. This conception of inspiration sees that God exercised control over the biblical authors in their selection and redaction of words and ideas and indeed in their entire life development to fit them for the portions of scripture they were to write (Jer. 1:5; Rom 9:17).

The ‘dictation’ view cannot be reconciled to the Biblical data that shows the source of scripture are as varied as documentary research, collation, redaction, dreams, vision and memory. (Grudem, 1994, pp 81-82; Lewis and Demarest, 1987, p. 140).

The ‘accommodation’ view, on the other hand, is inadequate to explain the high view of scripture displayed by Jesus and the NT writers and sets us on a slippery slope (Erickson, 1983, p.226) ending in the kind of Biblical vandalism demonstrated by Bishop John Shelby Spong (Australian Broadcasting Commission website, 2007), whose idea of a Christian reformation begins with the disembowelment of scripture (Diocese Of Newark website 2007)

In distinction to other conceptions of inspiration, supervision provides both a holistic and high view of the divine-human partnership in scripture. The Bible states that scripture is inspired, meaning literally ‘breathed out’ by God, thus underlining its divine origin (2 Tim 3:16). Complementary to this is Peter’s description of the impetus for scripture being the Holy Spirit who ‘carries along’ the scripture writer.
( 2 Peter 1:19-20). Jesus’ endorsement of scripture validates for us that the process of human mediation of scripture does not compromise the integrity of the inspiration.

Conclusion

The veracity of the Bible hinges on Jesus. Jesus validated all scripture in existence at the time of His incarnation and, as God, provided additional scripture. He also trained, specially commissioned and empowered twelve apostles to deliver all remaining necessary truth. Admittedly, the process of inspiration is a mystery and it is difficult to know where or how the divine ends and the human starts. For example, in Exodus 34:1 Moses was commanded to chisel two stone tablets on which the Lord would write and yet in verse 28 we learn that Moses did the actual writing. All that we can say with certainty is that the origin of scripture is divine – God provides the inspiration and impetus – but that human vessels are used.

The ground for our trust in Jesus is ultimately His resurrection. This is the Father’s great attestation to Jesus, God the Son, and hence ratification of all His claims including Jesus’ endorsement of the Bible as God’s word. That is why I take so much notice of the Bible.

Finally, though, it is admitted that the Bible does not provide a formal proof of its own character. It simply provides assertions about itself. (Grudem, 1994, p. 171) The proof of the divine origin of the Bible is only found in the witness of the Holy Spirit to scripture and this is available only to those redeemed through faith in the object of its message. In the meantime, sin obscures the apprehension of the divine virtue of scripture, a condition even the redeemed must battle until He comes again.

Reference List

Australian Broadcasting Commission website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘Sunday Nights
with John Cleary: Bishop Shelby Spong’, transcript, 17 June 2001,
http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm

Erickson M.J, 1983, “Christian Theology”, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan

Grudem W., 1994, “Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine”,
Intervarsity Press, Leicester.

Lewis G.R and Demarest B.A, 1987, “Integrative Theology”, Vol. 1, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan

McDowell, Josh, 1986, Revised edn, “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”, Vol. 1,
Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardin, California

Milne B., 1998, 2nd edn, “Know The Truth”, Intervarsity Press, Leicester

Pinnock Clark H., 1985, “The Scripture Principle”, Hodder And Stoughton, London

Spong, John.S., Diocese Of Newark website (cited 17 March 2007), ‘A Call For a
New Reformation’, May 1998, http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20598.html

Warfield B.B, 1889, Reformation Ink website (cited 17-March 2007).
‘The Authority & Inspiration of the Scriptures’,
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

What I Like Best About ‘Insiders’

What I like best about ‘Insiders’ is the Paul Kelly segment.

I love the way Barry Cassidy says ‘Now let’s hear from Paul Kelly’ and the screen is immediately filled with the giant head of Paul Kelly , his imposing grey eyebrows and that pervading aura of impending doom.

It’s just like Isaac Asimov’s ‘Foundation’ series where Hari Sheldon appears at century-wide intervals on holographic video to prophetically apply his findings of PsychoHistory to the current predicament of the Foundation Galactic Fringe and to guide and warn them, the saviours of civilisation.

Paul Kelly would make a great Hari Sheldon or Obi-Wan-Kenobe.

Anyway, I thought the avuncular prophet of the great grey eyebrow made some very penetrating remarks about Kevin Rudd in his half-term assessement of the Rudd government. For those who missed them:

PAUL KELLY: I don’t think the people are having a great love affair with Kevin Rudd, but Rudd is a most interesting political commodity. He looks like a policy wonk who’s actually a populist. He’s a new generation modernist.

Coming from a farm in Queensland, he’s got a keen understanding of the conservative nature of the Australian people, like John Howard did, and he plays to that.

He doesn’t polarise, he doesn’t polarise and divide the community. He wants to keep everybody happy. He appeals to all constituencies. He doesn’t like to take hard choices. He likes to keep all choices open.

Now this is a fascinating way to govern but you can’t govern this way indefinitely. He has brought to a peak the Howard technique of incumbency. Kevin Rudd runs a permanent election campaign every day.

Kevin Rudd – Howardesque populist conservative, leading his party to an inevitable electoral train wreck as the tensions inherent in populism pull cataclysmically apart.

Strewth – I wonder if Kelly is right ?

Anyway, what’s your favourite part of ‘Insiders’ and why ?