Beloved Father – Beloved Son

Book Review: Beloved Father – Beloved Son

by Graeme Rutherford and Jonathan Rutherford


Beloved Father – Beloved Son is the title of a recent book published by Mosaic Books of a conversation about faith and belief between a Bishop, Graeme Rutherford and his atheist son John. It is a remarkable book for its courage and clear presentation of ideas, beliefs and honesty by both father and son. I reflected on the book as a priest and father of three children myself. One who remains active and involved in the Anglican Church, while not without frustrations, questions and hope. Another who has converted to Judaism and the third who remains ambivalent. All have been raised in a family where going to church was a way of life, the existence God a foundation belief and who were encouraged to think outside the box, to take responsibility for their own lives and to seek after justice as a core outcome of faith.

The conversation in this book is of the highest level, with no ridicule or abuse associated with the dialogue. Both are well read and respect the position and ideas of the other seriously and with integrity. Not only are their respective thoughts and positions discussed as serious ideas but also there is a strong element of the personal and intimate in their words. This does not mean that challenge and criticism is avoided.  The discussion moves from the realm of theory and academia into the intimacy of family life and the struggles that many family members today are engaged with as they seek to find meaningful and fulfilling lives.  This is an important element of the book and adds to its meaningfulness as a good read. I found myself on both sides of the debate at times and enjoying the intellectual rigour that went side by side with the respect and love each had for the other. It further resonated with me as a reminder of recent discussions I had with my own children and to acknowledge how well read they are and their decisions about faith and belief are a result not of apathy but an informed decision. As I read the book I found myself yearning for this level of discussion in the wider church on the important social, ethical and economic issues of our times in addressing them, and showing the same level of respect and integrity Graeme and Jonathan show towards each other.  The same of course may be asked of our political leaders. Serious discussion on many of the life and death issues of our times facing the global community are often reduced to ideology, economics and ill informed opinion.

This book is not about creating drama and tension between a believer and an unbeliever. It has none of the Catherine Deveney self-righteous and mocking platitudes. Nor does it have the combative style of the new atheist movement. It takes seriously the complex issues challenging Christian faith  in today’s world.

I commend the book to all who are interested in growing their own faith or who want to examine the claims of those who deny belief in God. Like me I am sure it will challenge and may even provoke you to further theological study.

The Dumbing Down of Public Discourse

At the heart of a healthy, vigorous and robust democracy in Australia is the Parliament elected by the people to govern and to represent the best interests of the nation. Central to the life and work of the parliament is a belief in the principles of law, respect for the individual and concern for the common good. In recent years the parliament of Australia, or perhaps more accurately the political process, and the behaviour of politicians alongside other institutions like the professions and the Church have come under increased media attention and public scrutiny. Many recent debates in the parliament have been no more than personal attacks on the integrity of individuals at the expense of serious debate on the economy and a future vision for Australia. One-liners, smart slogans and sound bites are no substitute for serious discussion on the nation’s future. At the same time the level of public discourse has taken on more of a “slanging match style” rather than open conversation and dialogue.  Increasingly, politicians appear to be poll-driven and lack the courage and leadership required to make unpopular decisions for the common good. One exception to this in recent days has been the decision of the Federal Treasurer to abandon the Government’s commitment to a surplus budget.  The same courage cannot be seen on the matter of boat people and asylum seekers.  Politicians themselves are not only to blame for the state of public discourse.  Following the Treasurer’s announcement on the budget, the Melbourne Age headline read “Treasurer Dumps Surplus”, with implied criticism of government failure despite the fact that both business and economists applauded the decision as the right one for the times. Recently, the ABC’s Q&A has seen cheap shots by Catherine Deveney, designed to gain audience approval at the expense of Peter Jensen, while on a previous occasion the discussion between George Pell and Richard Dawkins left most viewers wondering about the motives of the show’s producers. When Jensen tried to make serious comment on matters raised, Deveney pandered to the audience rather than responding with rational and intelligent debate. Controversy, not substance, seems to have become the objective of much journalism with information increasingly being seen as entertainment.

The mainstream media regularly talks about the role they play in a democracy and no one who cherishes and believes fully in the freedom of the press would want to see this freedom banished. However, this same media cannot claim this role with biased reporting and journalism that lacks substance by presenting the views they support strongly while alternative ideas or evidence are ignored or only briefly mentioned.  The media‘s own view should be limited to the editorial and not the content of articles. Opinion pieces should be presented by a greater variety of writers and commentators.  The growth in continuous TV news coverage and the steady decline in print journalism is contributing to this. As there are fewer and fewer journalists, factual research is being replaced with press releases often without question and the parroting of interest group views. In place of an expert journalist and one competent in analysing competing viewpoints to get the truth the media is increasingly hiding behind popular and often simplistic public views.   Media personalities who depend on shock tactics and scandal for their daily following on the airwaves should have no place in the political process or in matters of public concern. Growing support for social media as a way forward in addressing and improving the level of public discourse is gaining support, but this medium is also liable to scorn and unsavoury tactics in reporting as much as the mainstream media. Opinions are all very well, but opinions need to be based on facts, rather than perceptions and innuendo.  Social media is as much a problem here as a potential solution. It simply amplifies the number of uninformed opinions that then feed of each other in a classic feedback loop. It is still no substitute for proper research by expert journalists or analysts.

Unfortunately, there are some in the church who want to suppress free and open discussion on issues affecting the community and matters of faith.  They argue for a single view or so-called authentic or orthodox viewpoint on Christianity to be expressed in diocesan media, and wish to deny to those who have other thoughts an opportunity to share them. There have been numerous examples in recent times of comments that have been inflammatory, discourteous, lacking substance or rude posted on social media about individuals, including the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, that place the Church in a poor light.  Christians or people of other faiths do not have an automatic right to criticise others for poor discussion and dialogue when they embark on the same path themselves.  Christians, as with all citizens, have a duty to lift the level of public discussion and we need to remind ourselves of the important role that the churches have played in shaping and informing our civil society.  Love, embracing justice, is at the core of God’s grace and our dialogue and discussion must always be open to the disturbing and even radical spirit of our calling for the time in which we live. The right behaviour we expect of others in public discourse must also be enshrined in our own. As The Age (Melbourne) editorial concluded on New Year’s Day:  “Australia needs people of strategic vision who will rise above petty arguments, the kind of people who are brave, compassionate and steadfast, who reach across political and social chasms to negotiate agreements because they want a stronger community”.

Christians have an obligation to respond to the challenge to ensure our internal and public discourse is of the highest standard and devoid of cheap shots and personal attacks.