AUDIO

by Archbishop Peter Jensen
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
In the choir with Peter Singer
David Mansfield
June 21st, 2011

Bible-lovers have very little in common with Australian ethicist Peter Singer.

But there may be one leaf out of his songbook that we are glad to sing from. Or is it just one song from our songbook that he would be happy to harmonise with?

Because we believe that people are created in the image of God, created for relationship with God and created to be his image bearers and servant/leaders of his world, will we not share Singer’s moral outrage for the indifference of the world’s richest billion to the plight of its poorest billion?

24,000 children under five die every day from starvation related illnesses or preventable diseases - 8.8 million small children every year.

In his book The Life You Can Save Singer argues that not one of us would walk past a pond where a child is drowning and hesitate to plunge in and save that child’s life.

We may be dressed in our latest designer label business suit. We may be wearing our favourite Italian leather shoes. We may be off to a meeting with the Prime Minister or morning tea with the Governor General. But not one of us would hesitate to ruin the suit, soil the shoes and arrive at the meeting late and soggy if it meant saving a single life.

How, then, argues Singer, could we sit on our hands or turn a blind eye to 24,000 children dying daily?

Singer argues that, with moderate expressions of generosity, the wealthiest billion can lift the poorest billion out of extreme poverty.

While we believe there is nothing more important than the rescuing of people from the horror of hell to the safe haven of heaven, social, emotional and physical needs still matter.

The Southern American Evangelical Baptist culture of Philip Yancey’s childhood and teenage years was white supremacist, segregationist and racist. They reviled and vilified civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King and John Perkins who pastored black Baptist congregations. They nicknamed Martin Luther King, ‘Martin Lucifer Coon’.

Yancey now says, “The thing that haunts me more than the sins of my past are the sins I might be blind to today.”

I often ask myself and I often ask others, “What sins might we be blind to today?” What might our grandchildren look back at our generation and say, “Why didn’t they get it?” Or, more frighteningly, what might our grandchildren be even blinder to because we turned a blind eye today?

In his 2008 Synod Presidential Address Archbishop Peter Jensen spoke of a Sydney clergyman, R B Hammond, who exercised a remarkable ministry during the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

The Archbishop said, “He modelled for us that typical evangelical alliance between preaching the Gospel and care for the community, an alliance that so wonderfully reflects and adorns the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Archbishop went on to speak about the Global Financial Crisis of our own day and said, “I hope we have not forgotten (the biblical virtues of faith, hope and love) for we are going to need them. Faith that God is in control; confidence in his future as being that which fulfils human existence; love from him that makes us generous to others . . . .  these are the qualities we are going to need more than ever as a community, as a nation . . . . if Australia does better than others in the crisis, we will bear an even greater responsibility to the poor of the earth.”

Bob Dylan asked in Blowin’ In The Wind, “How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see?”

Philip Yancey asks, “What sins am I blind to today?”

For very different reasons, from a very different songbook, we may find ourselves cobbled in the same choir as Peter Singer for just one song as we bellow out that 24,000 children dying from preventable causes is a global social evil we just cannot turn a blind eye to anymore.
 

Stephen Davis    22 June 2011 2:24am
David, unfortunately, there are a number of forces at play here, a large part of the problem that exists in countries where poverty and starvation are rife are the despotic governments, usually run by vicious dictators who have absolutely no concern for the people they are supposed to be looking after. I have every confidence that the West could and should knock these people out of the way and help to install good, competent people (not Western lackeys in case anyone who reads this thinks that is what I am implying!)who genuinely care about their people. Couple this with proper aid and advice from developed countries and I think you have the beginning of a solution that while not entirely eradicating poverty, will most certainly make a dent in it.
If these countries had any foreign debt prior to their rejuvination,then there would be a good case for forgiving it. However there needs to be a balance struck here, people, wherever they are, must ultimately be encouraged to think for themselves and accordingly, to provide for themselves as well.

#2 of 0 top
Robert James Elliott    22 June 2011 8:06am
I would be wary of engaging with Peter Singer on any moral topic without first being absolutely sure of the ground we are on. Singer is to ethics what "gay marriage" is to "marriage".

#3 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    22 June 2011 8:31pm
Dead right on that Rob!

#4 of 0 top
Kim Reid    22 June 2011 10:07pm
There are ways to help people in countries that are still run or were previously run by corrupt governments, without continuing to prop up such systems. Why in an article about children starving to death must it all come back to political systems? That is the easy way out for us.

And why can't we as Christians listen to wise words that come from outside our own family, like these from Peter Singer? The author isn't saying we should listen to everything Singer says, in fact he only deals with one opinion. The bible's mandate to care for the poor is as conspicuous as the one to protect the sanctity of marriage.

#5 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    22 June 2011 10:15pm
Hang on Kim , get off your high horse for a minute and take a step back. Whether you like it or not, corrupt political systems are a major factor in the starvation of a country's people and no amount of unwillingess to discuss "politics" will change that. Who suggested an easy way out of anything? I certainly didn't! If there are ways to help people in these countries then I am all for it but it is very easy to get emotionally charged about issues, however, if viable and practical solutions to these problems are to be formulated then you have to look at the whole picture. Lastly, I did not imply that the author was saying we should listen to everything Singer says.

#6 of 0 top
Ernest Burgess    23 June 2011 2:55am
Dave I know this is an issue close to your heart as you raised a similar voice previously under the title white babies black babies in May 2010. I think one of the tragedies is the power of drug companies there was an example of this with the "Aids" problem in South Africa and the supply of a particular vaccine and from memory even the UN did not carry much sway. In Australia we have just seen this week where drugs have come on to the PBS system and instead of costing thousands of dollars they are now available for $30-40. Maybe as a national church community we should collectively lobby our government to ensue Foreign aid is directed to reducing the plight of these children and improving their circumstances And seeing what pressure it can bear on the legitimate drug cartels of the world to help cure the preventable diseases of the poorer among humanity at price that reflects need not greed.

#7 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    23 June 2011 3:14am
Ernest, You raise an interesting point regarding foreign aid, now I'm not exactly up on the intricacies of how foreign aid is distributed or even whether there is a categorisation of it, eg. all currency, part currency and goods etc. However, in the case of the Aids epidemic, using our own government as an example, perhaps we could have paid one of our companies who make the vaccine a certain sum - in other words, a "purchase" and then distributed those vaccines throughout the areas affected by Aids in Africa. Just a thought!

#8 of 0 top
David Mansfield    23 June 2011 6:19am
Hey Robert and Stephen,

Three things about Robert’s comment and Stephen’s endorsement of it:

1. I wouldn’t be wary about engaging with Peter Singer on any moral issue. I’d be eager to wade in on every moral issue. I’d probably get my head kicked in most of the time, but, hey, so what, when John the Baptist spoke up about a moral issue, he lost his!

2. Peter Singer, and Julia Gillard for that matter, and I rarely sing the same songs. They would probably tear most of the pages out of my hymnbook and I would probably tear many pages out of their respective songbooks. When it comes to the worldview that forms the foundation and framework of a person’s ethics and anthropology, they may draw conclusions which 99.91% of the time will collide with mine, and they may draw conclusions that 00.09% of the time will kiss mine. If that happens I am more than happy to acknowledge and affirm the common ground.

3. I don’t think Peter or Julia share my biblical views about marriage and human sexuality but that doesn’t mean that we can’t share some common ground about some other aspects of how people should relate to each other.

#9 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    23 June 2011 6:25am
Thanks David, I think Robert was making a general comment, not necessarily telling you whether you should or should not. My support of his comment was of the same nature. As for your other points, I say fair enough, they are all very valid and as for sharing common ground about some other aspects of how people relate to each other, that's also fair enough, I think Christians will differ on how far you take that aspect you bought up but at the end of the day Singer and Gillard are 2 individuals that Jesus loves and died for so the first thing we need to consider is praying for their salvation which is not always easy to do especially if you are revulsed by their deception and downright anti Christian bias! Also see the last sentence in my reply to Kim above. All the best mate.

#10 of 0 top
David Mansfield    23 June 2011 6:32am
Thanks Steve,

Four thoughts on your first response to me,

1. The issues of corrupt governments, incompetent aid delivery and the complexities of aid delivery, and even the age old debate about aid verses development are great issues to raise. Interestingly Singer raises them all, and many other thorny issues, in The Life You Can Save and examines them at length. I hope, and I am not suggesting you are saying this, that these issues will never be for any of us an excuse for paralysis of action.

2. There are plenty of countries where governments are not so corrupt that aid can’t get through. There are plenty of aid and development agencies that work according to best practice procedures laid down by the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID).

3. Because I don’t have confidence in every country and every agency doesn’t mean I can’t have confidence in any or that my generosity can’t make a real difference in many lives.

4. On the aid verses development debate, the following mantra is a classic and a good one, "You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day. You can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime". But figure if, as we taught him how to fish, we did so on a full stomach while his was howling from hunger. Nuancing aid and development is a tricky business.

#11 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    23 June 2011 6:46am
Thanks again David, there is not one thing here that I would disagree with you on, I think we have both arrived at the same conclusion coming from different directions. David, your generosity will definitely make a difference, you just do not know where or when but rest assured it will. I am one of these people who has always tried to see the whole picture and sometimes that includes saying things that will get people's back up a bit(See Kim's reply above). Be assured, I would never use the aspects you raised in your first point as an excuse for paralysis of action as you call it, my first comment to this blog should amply refute any notion of that. As for your 3rd point, lets then get behind those people and encourage them to keep doing what they do. Lastly, any giving I believe should be made with the heartfelt intention that the recipient of it should benefit. I just believe it is wise to exercise a bit of discernment when you do give that's all. I am certainly enjoying your attention to my comments Dave, it helps me to think as well and I thank you for that.

#12 of 0 top
Kim Reid    23 June 2011 6:54am
Stephen - I think emotions are right at home in this argument about children dying. It would be a shame if we felt nothing in the face of such awful statistics.

I don't like the despot argument because while true in some cases, it is not true across the board. There are many countries where governments are trying to claw their way back from the effects of corrupt leaders and policies. And it continues to be the poor and defenceless who suffer and are without the basic necessities of food, opportunity and choice that we have in abundance. There are ways of helping such people that aren't untenable or inappropriate for us to engage in.

#13 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    23 June 2011 7:07am
Mate, once again, certainly agree, I myself am a parent and if you are one as well, then I am sure you would know that when you see children suffering, it cuts you to the heart, you get a rush of raw rage and sometimes you just want to find those responsible and deal with them, although that might not always be the wisest thing to do as well. I know and agree that emotions are right at home in this discussion, it is just that I am also a firm believer in all the factors at play and when you support emotions with clear and practical thinking that, when put into action, goes a long way towards solving these types of sordid problems, then I am of the firm conviction that the outcome will ultimately be better for all concerned. Just let me clarify something in case I have given the wrong impression, when I talk about despots, I am thinking along the lines of "make sure that if you give money to starving Africans then make sure as best and as far as you are able to,that the money does not ultimately go into some tinpot dictator's Swiss bank account. I am assuming that you are a reader, there is a book called Lords of Poverty written by a guy called Graham Hancock, it is only about 200 pages, you would probably knock it over in a week, it is one of the most revealing and disturbing accounts of what happens with aid money, but once again do not misconstrue this as a justification for not doing anything, I am simply pointing out things we need to be at least aware of.

#14 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    23 June 2011 9:54am
I agree with what Stephen has said at #1. I think that Kim at #4 is coming at the subject out of a desire to actually help the people who are starving and alleviate their suffering. The fear that Kim expresses is that David's call to us in this article will go unheeded because we put the poverty down to seemingly intractable problems.

The continent of Africa is interesting to look at as a pretty good proxy for the world's poorest one billion people to see how it could be transformed. As a layperson, my understanding of Africa is that it is a continent rich in natural resources which have been exploited by outsiders working in league with the International Monetary Fund whilst the Africans themselves have been brought into subjection to the greedy interests of these outsiders. In 2002, an African Union was formed, which is a political structure similar to the European Union and which is working towards a common African currency similar to the Euro. The African Union serves to increase Africa's subjection to the outsiders who are currently exploiting it because this Union formalises the outsiders’ control over the continent via policy formulation.

I believe that direct aid to poor countries is important. For example, sponsored kids can grow up into tomorrow’s leaders. Their road is hard and sponsorship is a way of

Continued...

#15 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    23 June 2011 9:54am
changing their world. Having said that, I really don’t believe, like Stephen, that direct aid is the full solution, especially since there are thousands and thousands of kids who miss out on sponsorship – all those faces on the aid websites. It’s pretty hard to look at it. That’s why we need to also attack the International Monetary Fund.

Organisations like the International Monetary Fund operate on the basis that it would take so long for any given person to wake up to their nefarious nature after that person is born and grows up into adulthood, that by the time they do wake up, they will be too old or too apathetic to do anything about it. The IMF is very cunning and portrays itself as a financial saint lending a helping hand, but many people have woken up to the real agenda of the IMF and want to disband it. The climate is ripe right now for a massive public backlash against the IMF.

So my question is, how can we take down the IMF, get the debts of these poor countries forgiven (which often involved the loaning of money created out of nothing via a few taps on a computer keyboard rather than the loaning of hard-earned dollars) and put them back in control of their own money supplies and their own economies without outside interference? When the Micah Challenge ran in previous years, I didn’t understand the IMF like I do today. My mind wasn’t in gear. For my part, I’ll go away and try to learn more about how the IMF brings

Continued...

#16 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    23 June 2011 9:55am
Third World countries into subjection – to their knees, so that it is more important to the IMF that these countries pay interest on their debts than feed their citizens. It’s truly outrageous. (This is what it means to be “on the hook”.) Anybody can find out more by Googling something like “how the IMF wrecks countries”. Often the IMF demands that the countries receiving loans privatise their essential services, which benefits the corporations that move in to take over the provision of these services with the objective of maximising their profit. It’s all a racket.

There are many interrelated issues involved in this subject, including the vested interests of the US government and the British government in keeping certain Third World governments in place (via their intelligence agencies and other means) in order to achieve the best financial outcome for the private banking and corporate interests (involved in the resources of those countries) that these governments answer to. Beyond any doubt, these Western governments are puppets of the banking and corporate elite. John Perkins published a book on this subject in 2004 called “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” which pulls back the curtain on what has really been going on.

I am only a novice in relation to this entire subject. I believe it is well worth our while to scratch its surface. Until we do, nothing will change because we will not be grappling with reality.

#17 of 0 top
Robert James Elliott    24 June 2011 1:06am
Very simply, my view is that Peter Singer is an appalling person and that when a Christian agrees with Singer, he or she affords Singer a respectability that he does not deserve. Humans are ends and not means. Singer is a philosopher whose ideas pave the way to grave evils.

Christians need to promulgate, publish and publicise Christian ethics.

#18 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    24 June 2011 1:14am
Robert, in view of David's comments about this whole issue and without being critical of David, I think consideration of the things raised in your last post needs to be factored into the equation somewhere.

#19 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    24 June 2011 1:49am
I have read some background on Peter Singer's views on certain subjects and I am completely stunned and appalled.

I agree whole-heartedly with Robert at #17 above. He has stated precisely what I was thinking.

#20 of 0 top
Ernest Burgess    24 June 2011 6:05am
seems to me we are shooting the messenger here how dare he a line us with the likes of Peter Singer its my understanding that Peter Singer is the spokesperson on ethics for the Greens yet Christians across Australia still vote for that party. Lets get back to the issue, in the time since David posted this 24,000 kids have died. What would happen if every Christian family in Sydney decided to adopt a child though world vision or compassion (which by the way is a tax deduction if we are still thinking materialistic about the issue) What would happen if the same response took place in Melbourne and the rest of the capital cities. Aussies Christian families could reduce this appalling death rate significantly so if it takes a name like Peter Singer to provoke us to think how we can help reduce this toll I say go for it David.

#21 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    24 June 2011 8:03am
I cannot understand how any Christian can vote for the Greens period, they have got rocks in their head if you ask me! I must admit Ernest, I am not sure if I could adopt a child under the circumstances you outline, perhaps I am a lesser person because of that, who knows, although I have got to admit, your suggestion if implemented would certainly work but the problem would simply be getting all those Christian families to simultaneously think like that. All the best Ernest.

#22 of 0 top
Ernest Burgess    24 June 2011 11:01am
Steve you do know I mean't the word sponsor rather than actually adopt and I am sure there are more church agencies as well as the two I mentioned that have programmes to assist. I noticed Russell Powell's article re the floods in China 30 Million affected as we feel for them too I am reminded of a quote attributed to Spurgeon "there but by the grace of God go I"

#23 of 0 top
David Mansfield    24 June 2011 6:47pm
Hey Robert, Stephen and Andrew,

With respect to comments 17 to 19:

1.I think the Utilitarian Ethics of Peter Singer are appalling. I think the ethics of the majority of Australians who believe in prenatal infanticide are appalling. I believe that the growing number of Australians who believe in euthanasia is appalling. I believe that politicians who believe these things, and other things, but for political expediency, don't come out and say them is appalling.

2. I think Peter Singer is an appalling person as I am an appalling person. The only hope for Singer and me is the death and resurrection of Jesus. I have, by God's grace, embraced this hope and I pray that Peter will too. It frightens me to think what the trajectory of my sinfulness would have looked like if I hadn't been surprised by grace. I've done enough damage as a Christian through sins of omission as well as commission.

3.If I ever get to meet Peter Singer I will tell him how appalling his ethics are and the unimaginable harm he has caused. I will also thank him for joining the choir of one of the too few voices out of a potential billion voices that is outraged by 24,000 preventable child deaths daily.

4. If I may dare to quote Dylan from Blowin' In The Wind again, "How many ears must one man have before he can hear people (children) cry?

#24 of 0 top
David Mansfield    24 June 2011 6:56pm
Thank you Ernie for your reminder to get back to the songsheet and also for the reminder of one simple and effective thing that we can do. I know you didn't mean adopt, but sponsor, but let me warm your heart and also challenge us all with the fact that I am friends with at least five Christian middle class families in South Africa who have all adopted black orphan babies - one of these babies is disabled. What could we do in our context that stretches us that we are not doing yet?

#25 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    24 June 2011 11:24pm
David

In 1991, the population of the continent of Africa was about 620 million. Today, twenty years later, the population of the continent of Africa is in excess of 1,020 million. That is an increase of a whopping 400 million or 64.5%.

Over this past twenty years, non-government organisations such as World Vision and Compassion have been advocating strongly for Christians to sponsor children in places like Africa. Many people, including myself, have succumbed to this intense pressure and sponsored children, though I have only sponsored a child for a small fraction of these past twenty years.

Clearly, something is not working. The population of Africa has mushroomed beyond our worst nightmares and the problem of poverty remains. It is time for a different approach than this broken record of the past twenty years. We should rather be sending the message to the adults in places like Africa that they should not be having children if they can't afford to care for them. This is grossly irresponsible. To then expect people in other parts of the world to pick up the tab for the living costs of these children and basically underwrite the decision of the parents to conceive the children is absolutely dysfunctional. It is global socialism and it holds no promise for anybody.

Continued...

#26 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    24 June 2011 11:25pm
I understand that direct aid to people in poor countries is important. But the end goal of the long term must be that they take responsibility for themselves and take care of themselves responsibly. In most, but not all parts of the world, there is air, soil, seed and rain. These are the requirements for food production. We are not doing poor people any favours in the long term by treating them as though they are incapable of doing the same things that we do – grow food and establish a market for it. And we are certainly not doing them any favours by turning a blind eye to their burgeoning populations, born into poverty. This is futility.

#27 of 0 top
David Mansfield    25 June 2011 9:25am
Andrew,

In 1991 the number of children under 5 who were dying annually from preventable causes was 13 million. Today the number is somewhere between 8.5 and 8.8 million. Couple that raw statistic with the growth rate of Africa that you cited and the picture is even more heartening.

Clearly, something is working.

#28 of 0 top
David Mansfield    25 June 2011 9:38am
Andrew, your comments concerning aid verses development are well made. See my fourth point at comment 10.

'Aid' is a broad term for a wide spectrum of activities from emergency relief at one end of the spectrum through to high end development projects with high capacity partners at the other end of the spectrum. Everything along the spectrum is needed. Buzz words for the high end of development include capacity building and sustainability. This is where we want to go but it takes time to get there. The end goal of the long term is responsibility and the sector works hard to achieve these outcomes in the face of the corruption and exploitation that has been well articulated in this discussion.

#29 of 0 top
Kim Reid    26 June 2011 7:42am
Whilst these are all fine sounding arguments they are only vaguely related to the original intent of the post. The author's challenge was for us to consider how as the rich people whom Singer's book indentifies we might curb our lifestyles to aid the poorest innocents living in other countries. The reasons for their poverty are varied and complex, as raised by all the above comments. But their plight remains. And we are able to help, even to just help a few lives in a small way is a difference. It won't solve these great dilemmas or ethical questions but the challenge remains even so.

#30 of 0 top
Kim Reid    26 June 2011 7:53am
Stephen - Thanks for the book recommendation.

I also recommend 'Aid and other dirty business' by Giles Bolton (mainly focussing on Africa) and 'Falling off the Edge' (more of an international focus) by Alex Perry.

Other commentors - 'The Fear' by Peter Godwin is a good look at the last few years of political history in Zimbabwe a country where the people are often accused of not 'taking responsibility for themselves'.

And 'The State of Africa' by Martin Meredith.

#31 of 0 top
Stephen Davis    26 June 2011 10:38pm
Ernest, yes my apologies, I was pretty sure you meant sponsorship, actually sometimes I sub conciously confuse both of these words in the context we have been discussing. I think Andrew makes a good point in post #26. To Kim, if I have not made it clear before then please accept my apologies but I am not using any of my arguments as an excuse for inaction. All I am saying is that there are other considerations besides emotion.Thanks for your book tips as well, I am always on the lookout for good reading material.

#32 of 0 top
Andrew Mackinnon    30 June 2011 8:49pm
The following article titled, "Getting Used To Life Without Food", is one of the most outstanding pieces of research I have ever read and is directly related to the topic of this thread. I highly encourage anybody who is interested in better understanding the current state of global food production to read this article in its entirety. It has certainly educated me by completely exposing the mind-boggling and deliberate, financial and political machinations that have increased, rather than alleviated the hunger of the world's poor.

http://www.rense.com/general94/getting.htm

#33 of 0 top
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.