The observant will have noticed that Sunday has been and gone and the Sunday Study is, once again, not online. It's location is currently in Tauranga, either in Matt's head or partially written on his laptop or (my preferred speculation) in email transit to me for editing.

In Matt's defence he has just finished teaching a three week intensive History of Philosophy course for Laidlaw College which saw him up til sometimes 3am every night writing the next day's lectures. Amidst those three weeks he had to prepare and give a seminar on Moral Relativism for Thinking Matters, research, write and preach a sermon for church, prepare for and sit his end of semester exams for his Teaching Diploma, celebrate Brittany's birthday and help me put together a party full of 9 year old girls. The minute he finished the lecturing stint he then had 3 essays to write due this afternoon and last night he had to prepare and give a bible study and drive to Tauranga for his last class of the semester which he is in now.

He is due home tonight and I expect him to be shattered when he arrives. Outstanding is the Sunday Study and two seriously overdue pieces refuting key arguments put forward by anti-smacking proponents that he promised to write ages ago but now he is finally clear of the chaos I am sure these will spring forth forthwith and the Sunday Study will be up later today.

In, The referendum campaign is underway, No Right Turn's Idiot/Savant gives an excellent example of an argument we see coming up a lot in the debate around the upcoming referendum on smacking. In addition to trotting out the standard ad hominem, that everyone who supports the reinstatement of the old section 59 of the Crimes Act is a "child-beater," I'd like to examine the emphasised part:

Essentially Idiot/Savant here claims the parent in his example are guilty, apriori, and as such, when they go to trial, they should not be able to attempt to raise a defence. The problem is that the whole point of having a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Even when it seems pretty obvious, trials are still necessary and the right to due process still applies. This right to due process includes, alongside the presumption of innocence, a right to raise a defence, no matter how stupid or implausible, and have the court assess it. The importance of this concept can be summed up by Blackstone's Ratio, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."[1]

Supporters of the anti-smacking law do not seem to get this. This 'claiming a defence' issue has been raised a lot ever since Sue Bradford first began promoting her bill to remove the old s59 defence, of reasonable force for the purposes of correction, from the Crimes Act. If you read the Vote Yes site, if you read the media releases and the articles and listen to the interviews you will hear it a lot.

Of course what Idiot/Savant, Bradford, the Vote Yes people, et al miss is that there is a world of difference between claiming a defence and succeeding in doing so. The court is not stupid and the people making the determinations of guilt or innocence in our courts are normal, everyday people. If it is so obvious to all of us that hitting a child across the face with a soup ladle is child abuse, and it is obvious to all of us, a court, made up of people like us, is not going to rule that such an action is an example of reasonable force.

The 34 reported cases on the old s59 are readily available in any law library and if you read them, instead of the media reports and politicians and websites and blogs, you will see time and time and time again child abusers failing in their attempts to raise the defence of reasonable force. The majority resulted in convictions and the few that did not were more often than not due to things like it not being proven who abused the child - which is terribly sad for the child, but you can't just convict anyone so that you can chalk up a conviction! Wrongly decided cases are a fact of life. Just like doctors making mistakes on the operating table, just like us making driving errors. We should try very hard to ensure that these do not happen but to remove a defence entirely and risk the prosecution of the innocent is not the answer. Besides, some of the cases cited in the media as being wrongly decided were not even cases where s59 was raised, other defences like self-defences were in play... shall we remove self-defence as defence?

The contempt for due process does not stop here; statements like Idiot/Savants that, "The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way," show that he is willing to accuse anyone of being a supporter of child abuse because they support the right of an accused to a fair trial.

Chilling. Basically once accused of something heinous, one should not be allowed to defend oneself and anyone who disagrees is morally on par with a child abuser.

There is another patently obvious flaw in Idiot/Savant's argument; removing the defence doesn't just prevent people who seriously abuse children from raising the defence it also prevents the wrongly accused from being able to raise it. However, without defences there is no way of separating the two. I am not speaking here of those who can stand up in court and honestly state 'I did not touch my child,' such accused could plead 'not guilty,' I am speaking of those who end up in court for smacking their children, not hitting them with soup ladles across the face; I am speaking of those who with an open hand, lightly, smack a child on the bottom once, not out of anger or in the midst of rage but in response to disobedience on the part of child. Such people cannot plead not guilty if accused of assault, they have no legal defence if they end up before a court. To remove legal defences from people innocent of child abuse to ensure that the net catches everyone is wrong.

Hat Tip: HalfDone

[1] William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1760).

... we're confused that anyone could find it confusing. The referendum question is:

Should it or shouldn't it? It seems pretty simple to me.

According to TVNZ,

Labour leader Phil Goff says the question implies that if you vote 'yes' that you're in favour of criminal sanctions being taken against reasonable parents, when actually nobody believes that. [Emphasis added]

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, the defence to the criminal charge of assault (“Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances”) was part of our c r i m i n a l code. To reinstate s59 of the Crimes Act (or not) is the question.

If Mr Goff wants anyone to believe that removing a defence from the Crimes Act will not have any bearing on criminal sanctions against those charged with assault he needs to stop being a legislator.

Does making something a criminal offence mean that criminal sanctions should not be brought against those who commit the offence? If yes then it does not follow that giving a yes vote in the referendum means that you support criminal sanctions against those who smack their children. If the answer is no then it is already the case that criminal sanctions can be brought against offenders who smack their children because it is currently a criminal offence to do so - Goff's claim that nobody advocates this is false because the Crimes Act does.

The only people confused here are Goff, Key, Bradford who seem to not understand that if your action crosses the Crimes Act then your action is criminal. Twits.

The only ambiguous, confusing thing about the law is the convoluted crap they inserted in place of s59. It reads like the sort of thing those who think they know a few things about the law write to impress their friends; read subsection (4) and see if you can work out what it means, it's the bit that starts "to avoid doubt..." but then doesn't (one wonders if Bradford wrote it herself, if someone with a law degree wrote it they should be up before the Bar).

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 No 18, Public Act

TANSA (Theology and Natural Sciences in Aotearoa) run conferences in Auckland. As Matt will be speaking, on "Does Evolution Make Belief in God Untenable? – An Examination of the Common Arguments," at the TANSA August Churches Conference, Faithful Science? – Just How Well Do Science and Faith Get Along? I thought I would refer you to their events page so you can check out what other events they have coming up.

Andy made some buttons for those blogs who make the various New Zealand blog rankings and he kindly sent me the code for each to share with you. Just copy the code for the button you want to display on your blog and past it wherever you want it.

This is yesterday's Sunday study as promised. It’s based on a message I gave at Riverhead Presbyterian Church yesterday.

A couple of months ago Madeleine was corresponding with a person who claimed he could prove that God does not exist. Madeleine challenged the person and in the ensuing dialogue it became evident that a theological misunderstanding under lied his opposition to the gospel. This man’s family were Christians; his father had suffered an accident resulting in one of his legs being amputated. The family and father had, apparently, earnestly prayed that the leg would grow back and it did not. Madeleine’s correspondent went on to claim that there are no documented cases of a person’s leg re-growing after amputation, as such he considered this to be conclusive proof that God does not exist.

Now neither of us took this line or argument seriously for a moment; our interlocutor was assuming that if God did not grow limbs back on request then it followed that God did not exist. We saw no basis for accepting this rather dubious premise and Madeleine stated that God was not some kind of Genie you could ask for your wishes to come true from. In response our correspondent referred us to a verse in Matthew; chapter 7:7-11,

Our correspondent informed us that Jesus states in this passage that whatever you ask for you receive.

Having never heard this line of argument before I figured this incident was an isolated one and wrote it off as one of those things that people say online. So I was surprised when a month later I heard the very same objection raised in conversation. Madeleine and I attend the monthly Auckland Bloggers Bash and have a couple of drinks with various Auckland bloggers. Two of the regulars edit widely circulated atheist or free-thought non-net publications so the conversation is often interesting.

One evening I ran into someone who was clearly very interested in meeting me. He had read several things I had written and wanted to know more about Christianity and why someone like me would believe in God. In conversation I discovered that he had been brought up as a believer. However, later in life he had seen sick people die despite the fact that his family had prayed for them and this had rocked his faith. On conversation with him it was apparent that he believed that if a Godly person, like the local pastor, asked God for something then one should expect God to do it. This, to him, was something Christianity taught and as his experience had showed this claim was false he had rejected Christianity. Let me note that this person was not being argumentative for the sake of it; he was interested in the issues and wanted to talk about them.

I realised that I had seen a similar understanding of Christianity in many churches in New Zealand. When I was at university I attended a church for some years where many people taught that a believer can “claim things” in the name of God, that God had given them authority and if they simply and sincerely claimed something then, provided they believed it strongly enough, God would give it to them. Others used to pray for convenient car parks when going to the supermarket under the belief that God would, if they asked, give them the correct place to park. Many believed that they could write a checklist of traits they wanted in a future spouse and then pray regularly to God about the list and “believe in God for it.” These were usually justified on the basis of passages like the one I cited above. Don’t passages like this make it clear that if a believer asks for something then God will give it to them?

To answer this question I will to look at three things. First is I will examine briefly what the passage says. Next I will look at the context in which the passage in Matthew occurs and finally I will examine how the same passage is interpreted and explained by Jesus in a parallel passage in the gospel of Luke.

In Matthew 7:7-11 Jesus asserts three imperatives and three promises which correspond to each command. He then follows this up with an argument or analogy to illustrate the point.

The three imperatives are a repetition of a single command to pray. Jesus uses three common rabbinic metaphors for prayer, “asking,” “seeking” and “knocking.” Moreover, the three imperatives are in the present tense which the original Greek indicates as continuous, persistent prayer. Hence, Jesus is commanding that we consistently, persistently and continuously pray for something. The promise that is annexed to this command is that if we do persistently pray in this fashion then we will receive the thing we are asking for.

Jesus reiterates the point. He tells us that even though we are evil, none of us would give our children a stone if they asked for bread or a snake if they asked for fish. (Bread and fish were the common forms of food around Lake Galilee, as is evident from the feeding of the 5000 in Matt 14.) Moreover, a round loaf would look like a stone and the eel-like catfish commonly found in Lake Galilee looks a bit like a snake (it doesn’t take much imagination to realise that snakes are dangerous animals capable of killing children).

Jesus’ point, then, is fairly vivid; when our children need food (something which nourishes them and is good for them) we don’t offer them something that looks like food but, in fact, is either inedible or dangerous and likely to kill them. He draws from this the conclusion that similarly, God would not, when we ask for something good, give us something evil.

Nothing in the passage itself tells what the thing we are to “seek,” “ask” or “knock” for is, nor does the analogy make it clear what Jesus is asking his disciples to petition God for is either except that, like food, it is “a good thing.” In the examples I began this post with the interpretation that was provided was that it referred to “anything” one asks for. I suggest, however, that the context and a parallel passage in Luke, suggests otherwise.

Turning first to the context, the passage occurs in the midst of a series of instructions Jesus gives about judging others. In v 1 Jesus stated that a person who judges the conduct of others will be judged by the same standard that they apply to others. From this he draws two important qualifications that need to be followed whenever a person attempts to criticise or correct the behaviour of other people. The first of these is that one should not attempt to “take the speck out of [another’s eye,] when there is a plank in their own eye?” instead you should “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” Jesus’ point is fairly evident; before we criticise the minor character flaws of others we should make sure that we have dealt with the serious character flaws in our own life. Only when this is done will we have the requisite discernment to make informed and correct moral judgements about others. (Far from the prohibition on judging that is usually ascribed to this passage.)

The second qualification Jesus makes is that one should “not give dogs what is sacred” nor should one, “throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” Dogs and pigs to Jews were unclean animals and the term was frequently used to designate people considered to be of low moral character and hence “unclean” before God. Jesus simply repeated the Old Testament teaching found in Proverbs 9:8, which states, “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you: rebuke a wise man and he will love you.”

What both these passages emphasis, then, is discernment; the ability to see one’s own moral failings, to be able to correct them, to have the wisdom to be able to correct others as well as the discernment to be an effective judge of others character.

This does not just occur immediately before the passage in question, similar things can be said about the texts that immediately follow. Immediately after telling us to ask, seek and knock, Christ states,

The word “so” at the beginning of this passage tells us that this text draws a conclusion from what has preceded. Again the context is the discernment and strength to do what is right and to avoid what is wrong. The text enjoins us to look at our own actions and ask if they are actions we would object to having done to us; it asks us to discern the narrow gate as opposed to the wide gate. Consequently, the imperative to ask, seek, knock, to continually petition God, occurs in a context where Jesus is discussing discernment, exhorting people to develop character and integrity. To suggest that in this context it is an unqualified promise referring to anything is I think mistaken.

The same basic point can be seen when we examine how Jesus presents the same teaching in Luke 11:9-11,

Here we see the same teaching that Jesus affirms in Matthew 7. Jesus states, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you,” moreover he uses the very same illustration of a father giving fish to his children when they request it. The difference is that Jesus adds some further commentary and interpretation on these phrases that enable us to get a better understanding of what he meant by them.

First, we can see again the context; in this passage we know precisely what Jesus is referring to when he asks us to seek, ask, knock because he has just instructed his disciples on how to pray and what to pray for. He has asked them to hallow his name, to proclaim that his character and reputation are sacred and holy, worthy of respect and adoration. Moreover, he has commanded them to pray that his kingdom come and will be done. In other words, to ask that their lives would be lives lived under his lordship and in obedience to him. This is emphasised by the fact that Jesus has told them to sincerely seek forgiveness for their sins and also for assistance in temptation and trials to help them to do the right thing and to not stumble into wrong doing. It is just after this that Jesus uses common rabbinic metaphors (ask, seek, knock) for regular, continuous and persistent prayer.

Further, in this passage we see Jesus illustrate the teaching further with a parable. The scene is of a Palestinian home where a family are all asleep in one room. Walter Leifield notes that this would probably mean they were all asleep on the same mat.[1] He notes that “The father could not get over to the door and slide back the heavy bolt that bars it without waking his family. In such a situation no one would be happy to respond especially in the middle of the night.”[2] Leifield interesting notes, however, that the friend who approaches him is actually duty bound to do so even with a midnight arrival,

Note then, that the parable Jesus gives is of one person asking another to assist him in fulfilling his duties or responsibilities. Even when it is irksome to do this for a friendsuch as in the middle of the night, a person will do this if another persistently bangs on his door.

When Jesus then says “ask and you receive” in the next verse, it seems fair to say that he is referring to asking for assistance in fulfilling one’s duties, leading a godly life where one confess one’s sins, avoids temptation, lives according to Gods laws, etc. This is further reinforced in v 13 where Luke identifies the good thing God can be relied upon to give that Matthew mentions (7:11) as the holy spirit, the advisor or counsellor, who assists believers in living a sanctified life.

When Jesus tells us then to ask, seek and knock and promises that we will receive, he is not promising that whatever we want God will give us. Rather he is commanding us to continually and persistently pray for God to help us to glorify him, to obey his commands, avoid temptation, do the right thing, etc. He is promising that a person who sincerely, continually and persistently seeks to live such a life will receive God’s spirit and assistance in living such a life. The text has nothing to do with amputated limbs, car parks, future spouses or any other thing that we may want or desire. And it’s mistaken to think that God ever claimed in scripture that he will give people whatever they ask for.

[1] Walter Leifield “Luke” The Expositors Bible Commentary ed Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing Company) Vol 8 948.
[2] Ibid.

Due to the presumption of innocence we are all supposed to accord an accused following a not guilty verdict, please do take care in suggesting and stating any disagreement you might have in regard to a court's decision. Defamation is a real possibility in such instances and the defamed can sue the blog/site owner, in some instances the ISP, as well as the comment poster.

Be aware that you can defame someone when you suggest or allude to your meaning as the court can imply both identity and meaning; if you have written it cryptically so people will get it without you saying it directly what makes you think that the court won't?

Stating it is your opinion is not a defence unless you can show your opinion is reasonably held and even then, unless you have the money to prove your defence in court it is wiser to not go there and to respect the presumption of innocence - you were not in that court room afterall. Don't rely on a plaintiff's broke status, that they won't be able to afford to drag you into court; lawyers are far more willing to do pro-bono work when their client is legally famous.

MandM do not moderate comments and allow anonymous contributors; however, as with spam, any comments posted on this blog that are defamatory will be deleted; legal defences for permitting publication of a defamatory viewpoint are much harder to succeed with. I suggest other bloggers watch their comments for this issue and be aware that even if you promptly delete it, you can still be sued even though you didn't write it.

From all of the above the so called "chilling effect" of defamation can be seen. Effectively what I am saying is that if you criticise the court's finding or you claim the court got it wrong then effectively you are saying that the accused that the court ruled 'not guilty' is in fact guilty and you step into the realm of defamation law. Whilst I support the concept of reputation as property that one can defend at law, as reputation can directly affect the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I also support freedom of expression and the principle of openness and further, I strongly oppose a system that effectively renders the courts as infallible or unquestionable.

Even though defences to defamation do exist that can, in some instances, support questioning of court and jury decisions, such as:

These defences are expensive to mount, you could easily run up a legal bill of $20,000 plus and there is no guarantee you will succeed, most of us don't have a spare 20k to throw at the things we say online so when confronted with the risk of having to we err on the side of caution and cede too much of our freedom of expression and our right to open trials; hence the chilling effect of defamation law.

However, rather than do away with defamation law or deem reputation to not be a form of property - I think requiring people to think about not harming others before they open their mouths is not that unreasonable a limitation on freedom of expression - the problem could be solved by a revamp of how the law works. Either publicly fund access to justice so you can defend yourself when accused and protect your property when it is attacked - judges could keep a check on frivolous actions or make defamation a criminal offence, which would achieve the same thing.

Did David Bain tell the 111 operator "I shot the prick" on discovering the dead bodies of his family?

This evidence was originally suppressed “until completion of the re-trial” as, per Wilson J,

The probative value of the disputed sounds is very modest, but the risk of prejudice resulting from their introduction into the trial is very great. There is more than a minor imbalance; the scales come down firmly on the side of exclusion of the evidence. Even if the disputed sounds were admissible under s 7, they should plainly be excluded under s 8. [of the Evidence Act 2006]