Also interesting, this comment in the SMH about the hypocrisy of the ‘art crowd’ in demanding free expression, and yet censuring the Prime Minister for his frank disapproval of the pieces in question: http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/05/28/1211654120223.html

It makes one wonder whether ‘free expression’ really means ‘free to express whatever I dream up, no matter how perverse’. How curious that the public have reacted against it - some hint of a conscience, perhaps? or another social convention that will pass in time, once enough of these controversies have played out in the papers?

I think Tony Abbott makes a good point that if these photos were found on his computer, he would be accused of possessing child pornography.

[moderator comment]

Hi,

Thank you for those who are contacting about bugs in the system and broken links. At the moment I am just removing broken links and we will get to the bug issues as soon as we can. Apologies!

Second, should you be interested in the links now omitted, they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson

[the Wikipedia article]

and

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/its_like_that_joke#33769

[Tim Blair’s comment on Elizabeth Farrelly’s opinion piece]

[moderator hat off]

Unfortunately, Michael and Luke, I have seen some of the Henson photographs. If you search through old editions of the Sydney Morning Herald from this week you will find an example. I don’t recommend this. They are sexually suggestive and involve under-age girls and boys. I am not sufficiently in touch with community standards to know whether they would be broadly considered pornographic, but I consider them so.

I’mm aware that there are questions of nuance and intent that will make discussion of individual examples difficult. But I think the principle that artistic expression ought not to trump morality remains. Biblically speaking, artistic culture is a neutral thing, not inherently bad but not inherently ennobling either. Morality is not, for the Christian, something that can be set aside.

Mike, I think you believe this anyway, as in your acknowledgement that “Scorsese can’t start making snuff movies”. And I’m actually more interested in highlighting principles along these lines, than in discussing specific definitions of what might or might not be pornographic.

Although I’d make the general observation that if a significant number of the secular community <i>do</i> consider something to be pornographic in nature, it would be at the very least surprising to find Christians arguing that no, it was perfectly acceptable on artistic grounds.

I think we can be seduced into taking too lightly Paul’s instruction to ‘Flee sexual immorality’ (1 Cor 6:18). Surely this would play out in a way that is, whether intentionally or not, going to make us look somewhat like fuddy-duddies on matters like this.

1 Peter 4:3-4 says “3 The time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.  4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you…”

Some rather disconnected late Friday night thoughts there.

I think most of the things we say with regard to ethics are not distinctively Christian, Mike.

There is nothing distinctively Christian, for example, about injunctions like “Do not murder” or “Let the aid through to Burma” or “Tell the truth”. Even Gentiles can occasionally get ethics right! (Romans 2:14-16)

That Christians would find themselves in agreement with many secular commentators on a particular moral issue is hardly problematic. Nor does noting the fact of such agreement on an issue constitute sneering from the sidelines—does it?

However, I do think that one of the tasks of good apologetics is highlighting the inconsistency and absurdity with which moral issues are addressed, once belief in God is abandoned as a given.

So you or I, or some other person may disagree in a particular instance about where the boundary line between pornography and non-pornography lies. But despite that, demonstrating the absurdity of the view that art justifies moral transgression is a really good thing.

Yes, Martin Scorsese can’t start making snuff movies. And the day he does so (if it comes) will not necessarily be the day Christians choose to respond by presenting a thoughtful paper on violence, militarism, Augustine’s just war theory, and the innate impulse to human aggression as seen in the world of art. Those would be useful contributions at another time, and in another place.

So I don’t disagree with your analogous list concerning youth, beauty, sin, image (and so on), and the worthwhileness of Christians thinking about these subjects.

I <i>do</i> disagree, however, that highlighting a silly argument in a moral debate constitutes sneering from the sidelines. Surely demolishing foolish arguments is something that Christian apologists do! That they (in this specific matter) find themselves in agreement with some secular commentators (who by the way include figures from the left of politics as well as the right) may even indicate that they haven’t taken leave of their senses.

It certainly would show that if they are on the sidelines, they are there with a lot of other people—including the Australian Prime Minister. Possibly 10% of the population had heard of the artist in question before this furore? But in buying in to the debate at this time, we are addressing the 90%. Given this, I even (somewhat cheekily) wonder if the sidelines are where the real action is, as far as Christians are concerned.

Maybe I’ll ask my friends at the choir rehearsal tomorrow what they think. ; -)

Hi there Drew,

Thanks for your comment. I’d be interested to know your views on childhood?

Cheers,

Keith

On the question of whether Christian ethics are different from other ethics, we can probably discuss the distinction between ethical injunctions and ethical reasonings on another occasion.

<i>Please tell me you would be more alarmed about pictures of naked 12 year olds on a Priests hard drive than a Paddington Gallery?</i>

It would be alarming, yes. But as we are arguing for a nuanced position, it would depend on why. Anyone who did the opposite of what I recommended and looked through old versions of the <i>Sydney Morning Herald</i> now has those images on their own hard drive. Is this bad, especially if the person concerned is a priest? It may not be ideal, but it’s no worse than having the pictures on display at the Paddington gallery, and may even be unobjectionable.

All of which is to say that we would both agree, then, that the reasons for an action (the taking of, or the reproducing of, or the viewing of questionable photos) will form part of an ethical judgement.

So I think we are basically in agreement on whether ethical questions need to be thought about in nuanced ways.

We also seem to agree that:

<i>There will be times when a Christian will need to say: ‘This is bad art” or “This is pornography” or “this should not be done”.</i>

I’m just saying that this is one such time.

Label me cynical, but I wonder if this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the SMH to confuse matters further. One of the reasons I concluded that the material was pornographic was on the basis of descriptions in one of the Herald articles.

Normally (for historical reasons to do with efficiency and a dial-up modem) I read the SMH in the text-only edition. When I couldn’t find the relevant article in the text-only edition (which is where I originally read it), I looked in the regular online edition and there was the article, complete with offensive picture.

It will make it harder to prosecute a case, I would have thought, if the defence are able to observe that any regular SMH reader has potentially viewed this material online and, if they have viewed it, now have it cached on their hard drive.

But possibly the SMH had nothing of the sort in mind.

What do you think?

The DPP have advised the police there is no reasonable likelihood of prosecution and the case is dropped - no great surprise there.

More surprising is the news that Hetty Johnson, who brought the complaint against Henson to the police, is being financially supported by the EROS Foundation who represent Australian pornographers (aacording to ABC Lateline) The EROS Foundation supported Hetty Johnson saying that they weren’t able to sell this kind of material so why should Henson? My guess is that they are pitching for a review and loosening of these laws.

Did the Professional Standards Unit of the Diocese know this when they circulated her petition? Has this whole exercise been a cynical manipulation of people who rightly object against pornography and the exploitation of children to further that very end?

Given the horrific news of internet paedophilia that are front pages at the moment you’ve got to think the police have more pressing priorities than giving publicity to Henson or EROS.