It was Dorothy Sayers who wrote the following: “Please realise that words are not just ‘talky talk’ – they are real and vital; they can change the face of the world. They are a form of action – “In the beginning was the Word…. By Whom all things were made.”

In reflecting on the good or harm that words can do, Sayers also wrote: “[words] can become a dope as dangerous as drugs or drink; it can rot the mind, sap the reason, send the will to sleep; it can pull down empires and set the neck of the people under the heel of tyranny.” 

And it was Jesus who noted that words reflect what is on our hearts. They are literally the overflow of who we are, coming out from as down deep as you can go. 

What then, when we listen to the words of our leaders? What do their words mean in terms of where their hearts are at? I do not write this to be pejorative in the examples below – but out of real concern to try and understand what is important to whom. Perhaps it is a confession that I truly am a bit confused as I listen to the pronouncements of those elected to serve the nation of Australia.

Here are some key examples of my confusion:

1. “We are saving the environment because we care” – but care about what? OF course, being good stewards of this planet is a given for me. But that stewardship includes caring for people. And history has taught us that helping people out of poverty is an excellent way to ‘clean things up’ (both environmentally and also politically). But the measures we are taking in Australia increase welfare, decrease dignified independence, and ironically, add to what the leaders say they are concerned about – that is, we sell our coal to other countries for them to burn and add to the world’s carbon emissions while they make our incredibly expensive wind and solar machines, without any plan for maintenance, disposal and replacement. 

2. “We are leaders of integrity with the environment and the economy” – but speaking of the environment, there is no final costings that include transition, subsidies, installation, maintenance, disposal and replacement. That includes the E.V. cars that are not contributing anything to road maintenance while being much heavier on the roads than a comparable petrol or diesel machine. And no-one (I have written to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Energy Minister) will engage with the issues raised by Dr Steve Koonin, who was President Obama’s undersecretary for science in the US Dept of energy. He explains so carefully what the science can and cannot tell us about the environment, and then comes to this conclusion (these are some extracts from the end of his book):

…. The only sure ways to promote conservation are through regulation or price increases. Either of those is a difficult act for a government to pull off. … Even if such a transformation did come to pass, it would make very little direct difference, if any, to the climate. (p.235) 

Thus, the best way to enable adaptation globally is to encourage the economic development of less developed countries and strengthen their governance (such as the rule of law of the ability to formulate and execute national strategies). In that sense, the task of enabling adaptation becomes that of alleviating poverty, which would be a good thing for many reasons having nothing to do with the climate. (p.249)

Advocating that we make only low-risk change until we have a better understanding of why the climate is changing, and how it might change in the future, is a stance some might call “waffling”, but I’d prefer the terms “realistic” and “prudent”. … Another prudent step would be to pursue adaptation strategies more vigorously. … So the best strategy is to promote economic development and strong institutions in developing countries in order to improve their ability to adapt …  (p.254-5)

Notice that sequence of thought from Koonin – the science is not capable of accurate modelling at present; we know enough to see what can help; and that is two kinds of adaptation – physical adjustment, as humans have done successfully for millennia, and helping the poor. Doesn’t that sound more like the ‘work and care for’  instruction in Genesis compared to the economically stifling and ultimately ruinous strategies of government-driven increased energy prices that make life harder for the poorest? 

Here is my second case study where the words do not seem to match the fruit that arise from the subsequent action. It is in the area of education:

3. “We are giving more money to our schools” – and currently, that normally means the State-run schools. This strategy has been entrenched for some time, but the results have been worse, not better, in core learning skills. What madness is this? Well, this is suggested – 

4. “We are now linking the funding to better instruction” – but instruction about what? Cultural neo-Marxists run amok (which means that they are protected, they are not challenged, nor asked to be self-disciplined or to demonstrate sound efficacy) in our tertiary institutions, which has led to the same in our National Curriculum. Have a look at the reading lists in the senior years of schooling and notice the absence of literature that reflects that there is objective moral truth (or ‘natural law’). Consider the shameful irony in “protecting” Indigenous children from what they need, which is to learn self-discipline in a disciplined environment. We know that having students be at school where there is a well-organised sequential core knowledge environment improves their learning of core reading, writing and mathematics. We also know that children need training as well as nurture – and training into the virtues based on universal respect, that is only found in Christian culture. But none of this seems to be at the heart of the ‘we are caring for the young’ actions we currently see. 

The same patterns can be seen in other areas of our governed life as well:

• “We want to be inclusive” – unless, of course, you are a Jew, where we will not protect you and your children from people who do not want you near them, or in the worst cases, not even alive.
• “We want free speech” – unless you quote the Bible as your source of truth when others disagree with you. Then we will take you before our pseudo-legal apparatuses (called Tribunals or Commissions that do not follow the Westminster tradition of law).
• “We want to be one” – unless of course you have preferred entry to the nation (think rushed Gazan immigrants) or unless you can even marginally link yourself to one of the earliest people groups on the continent.
• “We treasure our defence alliances” – but we didn’t send just one ship when they asked, nor have we tried to meet with the new “leader of the free world” (even if you find his character very unsavoury), while happily meeting numerous times with, and increasing our dependence on, the world’s most imperialist political entity (the CCP).

So – the question I ask myself is, “Do these words really show where the heart of these leaders is at? Or should I look for their true meaning in their outworkings?” I believe the latter because the overflow of the heart is what produces the fruit of our lives. And what we invest in reveals what we treasure most. 

Our response – as Jesus noted, let’s keep praying for our leaders, even if we believe they are making matters worse, sometimes to the point of persecution:

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… (Matthew 5:44)