30 March 2018
Glorious Failures
Smith, Warner and Bancroft have all as one newspaper put it, 'fallen from grace' and 'disgraced the nation.' Sport really is a religion in this country, it even borrows the same language. The three men were ushered by guards through the crowded airport amid the cries of 'cheat' and the sound of boos. As one former test cricketer Dean Jones described, 'this vision is horrific! My god…'
I see how all this may be an embarrassing disappointment, but is it really that ‘shocking?’ Are we really shocked when someone’s life goes rogue, morally fails, is selfish or just stupid? Are we surprised that celebrities are just like the rest of us?
We can be so full of contradictions here. On the one hand people rail against any mention of an ultimate moral code that tells them what is true and good, and what is not. ‘How dare you judge me, what gives you the right’ they say in defence to their own behaviour. Yet we so naturally jump to 'shocking disappointment' when our own self-styled moral code is not applied by others. We can be remarkably attuned to anyone else’s failure (sin) yet often blind to the magnitude of our own.
If your life, like our cricketers, was filmed from every angle and broadcast in high definition for the world to see – would you be spotless and unashamed? I doubt it. My point is that we all have integrity issues; we all have a walk of shame, we all fail. I’m not excusing sin or whatever you want to call it, just acknowledging it's unmistakable presence in us all.
And in acknowledging the reality of our sin, I wonder if it’s also worth acknowledging the deeper reaction we often have to it – guilt and shame. Guilt and shame can feel like a stain that you can’t remove. A deep wound that leaves you feeling unworthy and sometimes even worthless. I wonder if that is how Steve Smith feels at the moment. You see, it’s not just that he did wrong (guilt), but that somehow now he is fundamentally wrong as a person (shame) and unworthy of any place in the cricket community. How do you come back from that? Can you ever?
I think you can, and here is where I find the gospel so unique and compelling. The gospel simultaneously takes you to the very heights and to the very depths of your being in a way no other faith can.
To our pride, self-righteousness and success the gospel says you are a complete moral and spiritual failure – all your morality, good works and accomplishments are pathetic and hopelessly inadequate.
But thankfully the gospel doesn’t leave you there! To that harsh reality Jesus says I made you, you bear my image and I still choose you, delight in you and forgive you – and I’ll die to have you. No other religion or philosophy can embrace both our failure and our glory so completely. We are glorious failures indeed, but glorious failures that never fall from God’s grace - even when we fall from one another’s grace.
Over this Easter we remember the one who took another walk of shame, accompanied by guards, to the taunts and boos of a feral crowd, bearing the burden of a wooden cross and an unmerited shame. That walk of Jesus to the place of His crucifixion was for the Smiths, the Warners of this world, and for you and I. Jesus was accused so you could be pardoned, He was made a disgrace so you could receive grace, he was bound so you could be free.
No one else loves you that way.
In life, we all fail gloriously and bear the consequences. The cross reminds us that the state of our heart is far more serious than a momentary failure, a sinning against the baggy green – there are far greater implications. We need a saviour who neither excuses us nor abandons us. On the cross that is precisely what happens - justice and mercy are perfectly expressed in sacrificial love.
You could say our cricketers have experienced a swift justice and now I hope they experience a swift mercy because there is a great gift in our failure – the opportunity for humility, redemption and growth.
First there is the fall and then we recover from the fall. Both are the mercy of God.
Lady Julian of Norwich
14 February 2018
A good apology 101
Over the past 15 years of leading a larger church I’m regretfully confident I’ve disappointed hundreds of people one way or another.
Whether you lead a business, a church or any other organisation - the burden of leadership means we sometimes make choices for people that they wouldn’t necessarily make themselves. We initiate change which can be uncomfortable, we challenge accepted norms and confront situations and mind sets that others won’t confront. All that lends weight to the old adage that leadership is not a popularity contest.
But sometimes we disappoint or hurt people because we actually say or do something insensitive, ill-conceived or just plain dumb. And when that happens, we either clean up our mess or make some more. Experience tells me we often like to make some more.
Point in case, MP Adam Bandt made some offensive remarks in the media last week about Senator Jim Molan suggesting he may have committed war crimes during his role in the battle of Fallujah. Bandt’s baseless claims offended both Mr Molan, and much of the wider serving and ex armed forces community. Mr Molan asked for an apology and what Bandt eventually offered was just 6 words - 'I hereby apologise for those statements.’
That was, as Jim rightly pointed out, a ‘weak and disappointing apology.’ But before we all get too self-righteous, I bet we’ve all make weak and disappointing apologies from time to time. I sure have.
So how do you clean up your mess? How do you repair the damage to a relationship when there is a significant breakdown? Perhaps the best place to start is with owning your mess, and a darn good apology. But what is a good apology? The best answer I've found to that question is found in the Peacewise 7A’s of a Confession model. The 7A’s process of preparing an apology are:
1. Address everyone involved in the situation.
2. Avoid self-justification and using words like ‘if’, ‘but’ and ‘maybe.’
3. Admit specifically what you did.
4. Acknowledge the hurt you’ve caused.
5. Accept the consequences of your behaviour.
6. Alter your behaviour and express how you’ll do it.
7. Ask for forgiveness.
I like this approach because, when followed, generates an expression of contrition that is more fully cognisant of the damage you’ve caused. It is often more significant to the offended and it builds greater self-awareness in the confession process – the lack of which is often why we get ourselves into trouble in the first place.
Adam Bandt did eventually offer a second apology (perhaps with gritted teeth) and it was much better. I suspect he was coached by some wise soul in a process much like this one.
I find the last A of the 7 particularly meaningful – Ask for forgiveness. There is something so important in actually asking for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness we aren’t just addressing the past but we are asking for a future where mercy overcomes judgement and we are released from guilt and restored to the other person. We ask for something that is beyond our control, a gift only the other person can give. And if they give it, we experience grace and true reconciliation.
What a victory that moment becomes. And what and profound echo of the even greater grace, forgiveness and reconciliation we can all receive when we humbly come to Jesus the same way.
If you cover up your sin you’ll never do well.
But if you confess your sins and forsake them, you will be kissed by mercy.
Proverbs 28:13
06 February 2018
What would Jesus say to Harvey Weinstein?
Thurman’s character begins the film as a victim of savage abuse, shot in the head, left for dead, somehow surviving only to be repeatedly raped throughout her 4-year coma. When she finally wakes up she sets about killing everyone involved….and that’s about it. Typical Tarantino film, directed by his now notorious friend Harvey Weinstein.
Thurman’s character is the hero of the film - a powerful female who stands up to her abusers with lethal force. Back then, this was a rare narrative indeed - a powerful and aggressive woman. Until Marvel’s Wonder Woman, how many female superheroes could you name?
But for all that ground-breaking girl power in the film, the sad reality is that before, during and after the film, Uma Thurman, in a recent New York Times interview revealed she was another victim of Harvey Weinstein and the ‘misogynistic, vindictive, amoral culture of Hollywood’ – a culture that projects liberation (for women) with an underbelly of enslavement.
Once again, Uma’s story left me pretty darn disturbed, and angry. And yet this is not isolated to Hollywood, is it? The culture that dehumanises and objectifies women under the guise of their liberation is alive and well everywhere. I can’t buy a sandwich from the local takeaway without having a magazine stand full of demeaning images of women in my face, lobbying my own flawed heart. Nor can I search for something on Gumtree without an unsolicited add for dating ‘hot’ women appear. The Harvey Weinstein factor is not an isolated case – he is literally everywhere. Sadly, he also shows up in the church and sometimes there is an acute disconnect between the approach of Jesus and the practice of his followers.
In Jesus' time, women were inferior beings, inconsequential apart from servitude and procreation. The 2nd century BC writings of Jewish scholar Ben Sirach reveal that a daughter was considered a total loss and constant potential source of shame. Women were seen as responsible for sin coming into the world, their testimony was of no value in a court and they were typically, socially and spiritually invisible from a male viewpoint.
But Jesus approached women in a way that was radically different to his time and in many cases, ours. For example:
- Jesus travelled through cities and villages with a band of men and women known to be his disciples - an unthinkable idea in his context.
- Some of his female travelling companions are noted as having the means to resource his ministry.
- Jesus specifically went out of his way to minister to women and especially women of disrepute in society, at times defending women from their male abusers.
- Jesus continually expressed a deep sense of tender concern for women.
- Jesus selected images and created parables with a deliberate concern to communicate his message to a female audience.
- The first witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus were women.
And perhaps more importantly, Jesus imbued that same value of equality into his male disciples. How so? The gospel authors could have followed their cultural bias and edited out women from their writing. Instead they selected and presented stories from, and about Jesus that continued Jesus’ elevation of women to a place of equality with men in the community He created. But more so, the early church leaders resisted the prevailing world view and included women into the very heart and functioning of their churches. Women don’t disappear when Jesus is gone, no they retain and grow their significance within the fledgling communities of faith.
Has the Church failed to apply what Jesus and the earliest disciples embodied? All too often, and we need to own it. But stripping back all the layers of culture, insecurity and ignorance that so often drive our behaviour and resulting reputation - the Jesus of the bible was indeed one of history’s greatest champions of women, and so was His church.
Today, every local expression of Church around the world has the ongoing responsibility to shape its people as Jesus shaped his - as a community that equally lifts and empowers all people, male and female, young and old into the dignity and worth they already have in the eyes of God.
What would Jesus say to Harvey? I bet the tone in Jesus’ voice and the look in his eyes would say ‘even so, I love you Harvey.’ And, he’d want to discuss the myriad of reasons behind Harvey’s behaviour – just as He would for you and I.
26 January 2018
Australia Day - The problem is not the date
We learned that the Endeavour was a second-hand coal carrier, purchased by the Royal Navy in 1768 and refitted for a scientific mission to search the seas for a fabled Terra Australis Incognita or "unknown southern land". Joseph Banks, the botanist who joined the expedition was not a seaman, but his passion for discovering new flora and fauna made the voyage an irresistible opportunity. He paid in today’s terms, about a million dollars to be on board.
The ship was clearly not built for comfort and as we disembarked I was filled with a real sense of wonder and admiration for those who sailed her. They faced the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean in an age where charts were more suggestions, ships were made of wood, medicine was basic and communication was what happened if you made it back.
It’s sad I think that the life of Cook, Banks, Arthur Phillip, Burke, Wills and other early explorers and pioneers have become so politicised of late. In St Kilda today stands a century old statue of Cook, now layered in pink paint, defaced by a vandal who is looking for someone to blame.
Now as I’ve already written in older posts, I am an advocate for a substantive and meaningful constitutional recognition of our Indigenous peoples. I also believe the first history and culture lessons our children should be learning is our indigenous history and culture, and we should take pride in our nation having the oldest continuous living culture on the earth. Our story must also remind us of the gross injustices that followed colonisation and we need to keep recognising and responding to the ongoing need to provide equity and respect to indigenous people and culture.
But changing the date of Australia day, really? “Invasion day” if there was one was not the 26th of January. Cook arrived at Kurnell on the 29th April 1770 and Arthur Phillip arrived with the first fleet at the same location on the 18th of January 1788 and the formal establishment of a colony by Phillip did not take place till the 7th of February the same year. All that trivia to say that the arrival date is all a matter of interpretation.
For me the problem is not the date, but the modern bias in our national story rather than a celebration of our greater story - which is not hundreds of years old but thousands of years old. Today we should all pause for more than a moment to consider the past, both our indigenous peoples and our colonial pioneers. But let’s not feel guilty for also celebrating the immense privilege it is to live in Australia today - not perfect, but pretty darn great. C’mon people, travel a bit and you realise just how blessed we are.
But also, it seems selfish to just celebrate how our nation is good for us. I’m challenged to consider how such privilege and prosperity propels us into greater generosity toward people and problems both at home and abroad.
So today might we remember our past, be thankful for our present and thereby be moved toward a more generous future personally, and as a nation.
So today might we remember our past, be thankful for our present and thereby be moved toward a more generous future personally, and as a nation.
18 December 2017
A place at your table
And after all the craziness of the week that will have passed, there will be those few but precious moments, maybe snapped and posted on your facebook page, where you experience the delight that this season is meant to evoke – maybe.
Or then again, this week could be a slow build to the most forgettable day of the year. That agonising reminder that the doorbell wont ring, the decorations can stay in their box again and you are shopping for one. A day when you feel most alone and you avoid facebook just that bit more because it hurts to see everyone else sharing their happy family memories while you sit alone at home…watching the annual rerun of Home Alone.
If you watch the way advertisers present the Christmas season – it's all family fun, happy children and socialising with your inner circles of friends. But according to a new Australian Red Cross survey, one in four of Australians – or 5.6 million people – are lonely almost all of the time or on a regular basis.
It may be due to the death of a loved one, illness or old age, family breakdown or just a lack of social connections. Whatever the reason, Christmas is salt in the wounds of loneliness for a quarter of our community.
Social isolation is a common theme throughout the gospels. Jesus repeatedly gravitated to the people who perhaps most acutely felt the sting of loneliness - the demoniac, the woman at the well, the disabled, the tax collector. These were the invisible people, the lepers of the social scene – the ones that respectable, well connected people ignored or avoided.
Jesus continually made room for these people – and my hunch is so can we.
The problem of loneliness seems impossibly big and I imagine most of us shrug our shoulders and conclude there is nothing that we can do about it – so we do nothing about it. But perhaps, like Jesus, our part is not to solve this for everyone, but simply to find the one who you can open your life and home to this year. To lengthen the Christmas table, add a chair and include someone into your family, or your inner circle of friends who otherwise wouldn’t be there. They will be blessed and so will you.
I'm reminded of Psalm 68.6 which says "God sets the lonely in families." I guess He does that when families first open their doors to the lonely.
We are fortunate to have several wonderful people joining us this Christmas day at our family table - some we’ve known for a while and some we just met a week ago. It’s the thing I’m most looking forward to this Christmas.
I wonder, who might you include this year at your table?
And hey thanks for joining me this year in Lifewords! I hope you’ve been challenged and encouraged. I’ve enjoyed the process of reflecting and writing and I always appreciate your comments and feedback.
May you have a joyous, restful end to the year and may you know the hope and the peace that Jesus can bring.
17 November 2017
Same Sex Marriage - Conclusions
The church in Australia (and certainly my own church, Georges River Life Church) have always had only 2 options. We either sincerely open our doors and hearts to anyone to come, or we continue to shrink from society and betray the kingdom that Jesus ceaselessly embodied.
That kingdom is not an exclusive club for the righteous. No, it is a regal wedding invitation gone viral, shouted from every street corner to anyone who would come—just as they are (Matthew 22.9). That kingdom is like a giant fisherman’s net that indiscriminately scoops up everything in its pathway (Matthew 13.47). And that kingdom demonstrates a radically subversive power in strange ways—like an innocent king willfully hanging on a Roman cross for a world gone mad, lost in its own distortions of the ‘good life’.
Jesus’ kingdom is the paradoxical marriage of a perfectly good and holy God with perfectly broken and unholy people. His invitation is to all people to come and be re-formed by His truth and grace, from the inside to the out. Which is why Jesus also described his kingdom as like yeast - a tiny amount works its transforming power slowly and invisibly through all the ‘dough’ of our lives (Matthew 13.33).
Surprisingly, Jesus, post-resurrection gave his followers, the church, the task of being his ambassadors, representing and progressing that same kingdom. That decision through history has looked like a tactical blunder at times, and equally an act of sheer brilliance. Either way, the church today must constantly ask itself this question: ‘Are we accurately representing the kingdom Jesus inaugurated or something else?’ If the LGBTIQ community are left feeling like lepers at the front doors of our sanctuaries, then I suspect we need to go back and re-read the gospels.
Does that mean we all roll over and say anything goes? I’m not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that Jesus is always the one who does the heart surgery and the churches role is to not scare people away from the operating theatre.
So, after all the rainbow-colored balloons have deflated, the flags folded and last drinks are had at the victory parties; after the media move on to the next story; after the surge of new marriages have been registered at the office of births, deaths and marriages; after the gloom of those who feel disaffected or betrayed by it all; and after we settle into a new norm in the Australian landscape; I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer, the real answer to all our angst and longing for validation, significance and hope will ultimately remain unfulfilled.
I seriously doubt an equality utopia will now suddenly descend from the heavens and people will live unoffended, unoppressed or burden-free lives. No earthly marriage of any kind, and certainly no legislation (just look at Indigenous Australia) will quiet the nagging ache of our souls nor our innate propensity toward brokenness. The gospel reveals that progressive or conservative, straight or gay, rich or poor, privileged or unprivileged—our crafted identities and mini kingdoms only go part of the way toward a life that is truly free and flourishing. Jesus and his kingdom remains the ultimate answer to all our hopes and fears—and maybe this is a time for getting our focus back onto that message.
So now may we walk in the beautiful tension of living uncompromisingly, disagreeing respectfully, engaging purposefully and loving relentlessly.
06 November 2017
Why are we all so busy?
Why the break? Why not! Resting from being ‘productive,’ resting from expectation and denying oneself that consuming habit of checking your news feed is simply good for the soul sometimes.
So, I’d like to say I was just totally resting, but that is not completely reality, is it? I find rest so incredibly hard to do at this stage of life – and I know I’m not alone. If there is one narrative I hear more than any other in people’s lives today, it is that life is ‘soooo busy’ (and frankly I’m often no exception). Busy is not just the realm of the high-flying executive, the school teacher, the tradie nor the parents of young ones. Busy finds most of us, and sadly, busy defines many of us. I'm acutely aware that many in my community perceive me as a busy person - perhaps too busy to interrupt. My dilemma is that busy is not what I want to be known for, nor the example I want to set - but I am.
Now busy is not necessarily bad. Living productive, full lives can be immensely rewarding. However, busy is not typically something we are aiming for in life because of the effect that it has on so many dimensions of life. For example, I and my pastoral colleagues in every church I can think of lament the same trend in their faith communities. Attendance is becoming increasingly sporadic, as people are torn between commitment to the rhythm of weekly worship and everything else that seems to crowd in. Sadly, it is common these days for people to come monthly to a worship service or not at all. I conclude that the problem is not necessarily the waning spirituality of the people. It is more possibly the unprecedented demand on their time and the dilemma of how to make the average week work when Sunday may be the only moment to breathe, (or catch up on everything else that didn’t get done the other 6 days).
For those who feel like that today, can I say, I get it. The pace of life leaves us all constantly choosing between the urgent and the important – and usually the urgent wins.
But let’s push back a little on this trend, because in as much as busy is a reality we all know; we are not simply passive victims of time and circumstance. We all make real choices with the same 24-hour time period that everyone has enjoyed through all of history. And perhaps we need to examine the why behind all those choices?
For example, why do I need to earn that much money? Why do I need to work so many hours? Why must my kids be in 5 different activities or private school? Why is the football game more compelling than friends or worship? Why do I need to fill every spare minute with some kind of digital stimulus or media? Why do I feel guilty doing nothing? I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea. Why is such a great question.
I’m sure we all think we have sensible answers for our choices. But our choices are probably the truest manifestation of the real values of our life. Sometimes we genuinely feel powerless to change our situation, but my hunch is that in most cases, we are strongly motivated by the need for a type of control and comfort. We have a deep longing to be in control of our circumstances and relationships, and obtain whatever we think will satisfy. And we buy the story that when we have control and comfort, happiness, significance, security and peace will then flood into our lives. But does it? And if it does, for how long?
I wonder how often our sensible choices sabotage the very life we long for?
God makes people not machines. We are flesh and blood, designed to both work, and rest. And rest is not simply a sleep in on Sunday, rest is far more purposeful.
The Bible’s answer to this is Sabbath, a concept largely overlooked today. Sabbath is the work and rest pattern woven into creation. The land was to be worked for 6 years and rested the seventh; people were to toil 6 days and rest the seventh. God is into sustainability – sustainable use of the land and sustainable lives. The Sabbath was a day of ceasing from toil and exchanging it with fellowship and worship. A positioning of our lives around abiding and connection to God, and each other. Jesus in John 15 would say that it is only from this position that real flourishing in life happens.
There is great wisdom in this ancient pattern which is as relevant today as it has ever been. Jesus was frequently critical of religious types who applied Sabbath in legalistic and prescriptive ways. But Jesus never disregards the Sabbath and he says in Mark 2 ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’
The Sabbath was a gift for people to keep them from ceaseless toil and create margin where their hearts and lives could be reoriented toward God and one another.
I wonder if it is worth considering how we build this pattern back into our lives?
Where would you begin? Here is an interesting exercise to try:
1. Make a two-column table with ‘Toil’ on left side and ‘Sabbath’ on the right. Take a look at your calendar for say a month and categorise all your activities into one column or the other. Ask the ‘why’ question behind each activity.
2. In the Toil column put a question mark next to anything that may need further reflection. Why must this activity remain on my list?
3. Consider and pray about what you may need to reduce and how you may need to restructure your time to create more margin for Sabbath.
Experience tells me that when people get super busy the first thing to go is the right-hand column and the priority of Sabbath activities. What if we valued this right-hand column so much that we would instead ask ‘what needs to go from all my toiling?’ Perhaps we would eventually discover not only a more sustainable life, but a more productive one too?
1. Make a two-column table with ‘Toil’ on left side and ‘Sabbath’ on the right. Take a look at your calendar for say a month and categorise all your activities into one column or the other. Ask the ‘why’ question behind each activity.
2. In the Toil column put a question mark next to anything that may need further reflection. Why must this activity remain on my list?
3. Consider and pray about what you may need to reduce and how you may need to restructure your time to create more margin for Sabbath.
Experience tells me that when people get super busy the first thing to go is the right-hand column and the priority of Sabbath activities. What if we valued this right-hand column so much that we would instead ask ‘what needs to go from all my toiling?’ Perhaps we would eventually discover not only a more sustainable life, but a more productive one too?
31 October 2017
Trick or Treat?
Some of my best childhood years were lived up state
New York, a magical place of white Christmas’, thanksgiving turkeys, Autumn leaves and trick or treat - the yanks really do holidays well. Halloween in that context was one of the
most exciting times of the year. Each year we’d hollow out the pumpkin for the
jack o lantern and dress up as ghosts or other characters. Then we’d go house
to house with our bags, expectant of a great haul of assorted sweets. And oh
did we clean up! Parents today would be horrified by the amount of sugar
consumed in the next few weeks. If I get diabetes one day, I’ll blame those
years in America. There, Halloween made sense, it was fun and there was nothing
perceivably dark about it. Here, Halloween seems odd, a blatant attempt at
selling confectionary and cheap costumes.
But Halloween must be getting some traction
because even Aldi had a Halloween sale a few weeks back and my local Coles rolled in a giant pallet of Halloween pumpkins which have all since been sold.
Are we being Americanized? Are we participating in a pagan festival? Are we identifying with evil, or at least the evils of commercialism? Well, if we take that approach then Christmas and Easter should also be out because there is a lot of commercialism, and one or two pagan elements there too. And if we are uptight about themes of magic or witches, then best not read Tolken or CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia either.
Are we being Americanized? Are we participating in a pagan festival? Are we identifying with evil, or at least the evils of commercialism? Well, if we take that approach then Christmas and Easter should also be out because there is a lot of commercialism, and one or two pagan elements there too. And if we are uptight about themes of magic or witches, then best not read Tolken or CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia either.
Halloween’s meaning depends on your perspective
but doesn’t really have any clarity in most people’s minds because it’s a
foreign concept to the majority of Australians. There are Christian roots in
All Hallows’ Eve, conceived in the 9thc, which celebrated or
“hallowed” all the saints and martyrs on November 1st (all Saints day). This
was preceded the night before with a vigil of liturgical ceremonies and
prayers. Interestingly popular culture today has substituted the celebration of
Christian saints and martyrs with spooky ghosts, zombies and themes of death
but its origins are actually more in celebration of the resurrection of the
dead.
The pagan roots of Halloween are really vague.
Seasonal harvest festivals in Europe and the British Isles’ developed
independently and had their own mythologies around preparation for a northern
hemisphere winter, a symbol of death. As Ross Clifford in his book Taboo or
To Do writes that in modern times neo-Pagan witchcraft groups celebrate
October 31 as one of their eight major festivals in their ritual calendar,
which together form the “Wheel of the Year myth”. Fascinatingly the wheel of
the year myth concerns a virgin goddess carrying a child of promise who grows
up to fight the power of the Dark Lord of the underworld. This child dies and
rises again. Now if that isn’t a conversation starter, I don’t know what is!
Halloween is a convoluted mix of beliefs around
seasons and harvest food, death and the dead, sprinkled with a lot of secular
commercialism. Tonight is Halloween and if you live in a busy street, you may
have some visitors come knocking. So will you shut the blinds and act like no
ones home, or open the door and start a conversation? What other time in the
year do neighbours knock on each other’s doors and give gifts to one another?
Yes, Halloween has some dark connotations, but perhaps, instead of being the
killjoys of the neighborhood, we can redeem the moment. We could use it as a
way of connecting with people, sharing the back-story of Halloween, and
pointing to the best story of how God loves us and delivers us from the evil
one.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:21-23 To those
not having the law I became like one not having the law so as to win those not
having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all
things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all
this for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings.
20 September 2017
Questions of equality and simplicity
I took my kids to the park last Saturday to ride bikes and kick the soccer ball. The park was littered with dozens of children and parents enjoying the spring warmth, picnic rugs sprawled across freshly cut grass. And amongst the crowd were two men in their 20’s laying affectionately in each other’s arms, kissing (a lot) and chatting to each other as they scrolled and swiped their phones. I intermittently watched this scene for almost an hour as people passed by. I was curious to observe any reactions people might have to this demonstrable display of affection. Thankfully, no one harassed them, they weren't taunted or bullied, the police didn't come and move them on. Of course, you’ll always get some people being cruel, rude and ignorant towards others - for all manner of reasons. And that is never acceptable. But don't you think Australia is changing and on the whole, we've become a far more tolerant, accepting nation around people who are same sex attracted? I believe so, and I am grateful for that change!
Only a few decades ago, homosexuality was a taboo topic and ‘coming out’ was newsworthy. Today most of society doesn’t bat an eyelid. People who are gay confidently hold some of the highest positions in government and corporate sectors without fear of limited opportunity e.g. MP Tim Wilson and Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.
Registered same sex de-facto couples and their families have the same entitlements as registered opposite-sex de facto couples thanks to the governments same sex reform package which passed parliament in November 2008. According to the Department of Social Services website, this reform removed discrimination against same-sex de facto couples and their families in areas such as taxation; superannuation; social security and family assistance; the PBS and Medicare Safety Net; aged care and veterans' entitlements; immigration and citizenship; child support and family law (1). Not withstanding there are still inconsistencies across states that will be fixed, the legal status of same sex couples who wish to register their relationship is in place.
So, what of discrimination or equality? These are two very popular words at the moment. Is equality only reached when all differences among people are erased? And if that’s the case, what happened to the push for diversity? And if ‘diversity’ is of such a high value today, is there no place for the appreciation of a diversity of ways that people can express and equally validate their relationship? Or does that fall into the realm of discrimination?
Discrimination is not simply that people don't all enjoy the same treatment or benefits or outcomes in life. (You may need to read that last sentence twice). This notion is both philosophically and practically unworkable because we are all different people with different skills, interests, capacities and temperaments which lead to different opportunities and outcomes in life.
Discrimination becomes discrimination when another person is treated differently for an irrelevant or ‘bogus’ reason. For example, if I was barred from becoming a Qantas pilot on the grounds that I was gay, that would be cause for discrimination because my sexual preference is irrelevant to the basic criteria for flying a plane.
So, as I think about it, the real question concerning marriage becomes this — Is the existing definition of marriage (male/female complementarity in an enduring exclusive union) of value, and worth preserving — or is this basic criterion now irrelevant? Because if this criteria is now irrelevant, then it is fair to say that any and all prohibition of people to the institution of marriage could be considered discriminatory. But on the other hand, if it is not irrelevant, then the opposite holds true.
Let’s assume for the moment that the traditional criteria is irrelevant and it’s time for change. What then should be the new non-discriminatory criteria? If the criteria is simply ‘love’ — because we are told all love is the same (which if you think about it, can't be) — then it follows that anyone should be free to marry anyone or any number of people they choose. Is that what we want?
That may not be what the current reforms are about, but logically, how could this precedent not trigger equally valid claims by other parties such as bisexuals who have two loves and wish to marry both a male and a female partner? Because the arguments are the same. Under the current reforms will we really achieve the headline goal of ‘marriage equality’, or just equality for one small but powerful minority? And who is the next minority? And at what point with future revisions will marriage become so nondescript that it ceases to be a meaningful term at all? Do we further undermine and weaken marriage by fundamentally changing its essential criteria? And why is that fair?
Some people will quickly label these questions as diversionary or fear mongering, or homophobic or irrelevant, because it’s easier to do so than to seriously address them.
Now, what if the existing heterosexual criteria in marriage that has been essentially in place across the expanse of all human history — through which we all owe our existence — is still relevant? What if that procreative function of marriage, regardless of whether couples can conceive, or even want to, is a fundamental component of the definition, and to remove it is to create an entirely different relationship category?
Could anyone seriously believe that? On a global scale — yes, lots of people. A heterosexual definition of marriage is not simply a Christian position, as portrayed in the media, but is held by the overwhelming majority of the world’s faiths including indigenous Australian, Muslim, Hindu and even Buddhism, which is at best neutral on the matter. It is equally championed by some secular and libertarian thinkers and even some quarters of the LGBTI community. This doesn't prove anything really other than debunking the notion that globally, marriage as a heterosexual construct is on the way out.
There is intense pressure to view SSM as a simple decision of promoting fairness and equality for all. That is the primary message of the ‘Yes’ campaign. But this is not a simple decision, and to say so is disingenuous. I think ‘simplicity’ is a clever strategy aimed at capturing the undecided and swinging voters (no pun intended). Are the wider implications of a change to the fundamental building block of society also irrelevant - such as the rights of a child to have the opportunity to be raised by both biological parents or the value of knowing your biological parents or grandparents?
Senator Sarah Hanson Young, at a ‘Yes’ rally last week said that ‘love is above politics’. Yes, this is true, but legislation is not above politics and this is actually about a legislative change. With regard to legislation, the attorney general’s department has advised there would be approximately 60 consequential changes across 25 Commonwealth Acts in addition to changes to state acts and anti-discrimination, charity and inheritance law. That is not simple.
Moreover, if ‘love is above politics’ then that is an ethical directive used very selectively. For example, our foreign aid budget is around 30% lower now than it was in 2013 after 4 consecutive years of budget cuts.
And what about those national values of freedom of religion, conscience and speech — and not just for religious practitioners, schools and cake bakers as popularised in the media; but for anyone at all who holds traditional views? Given that no actual legislation can be provided for these human rights — how can we know that it’s simple or fair for all regardless of their views?
Only 7 years ago, Labor’s position was not supportive of SSM. Now, by 2019 the Labor party will mandate that it’s MPs must affirm the party position on marriage to retain their preselection. By inference, people of devout faith who hold traditional views about marriage are no longer welcome in the party. Is that equality?
In the corporate sector, we are seeing company boards and CEO’s somewhat opportunistically marketing their stance on SSM and leaning on their employees to tow the company line (which has nothing to do with the terms of their employment). Last week small business owner Madlin Sims sacked a staff member because they expressed in social media that it is “ok to say no”. Similarly, people have been forced to resign from boards (e.g. Mark Allaby) and, like the cover photo I snapped of Martin Place yesterday — apparently, the City of Sydney Council is all voting 'yes.' Sports bodies like the ARU have declared their positions on behalf of all their code’s players (note the public backlash against Israel Folau for expressing his personal views). The same applies to Margaret Court who faced calls to have her name struck from the arena named in her honour; to Dr Pansy Lai who faced a petition to have her deregistered as a GP; and to Coopers Beers who were boycotted to the point of its survival for its “keeping it light” campaign. And then there is Catholic Archbishop Julain Porteous who was hauled before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission simply for expressing basic Catholic doctrine on marriage to his church community.
As noted by Professor of Law at Sydney University, Patrick Parkinson, ‘the issue is not so much the individual instances but the silence of our political leaders on the most fundamental breaches of religious freedom. We are not sufficiently shocked by this.’
I know, I know, that’s not we are voting on. But does anyone really know what we are voting on? I want to believe the best from our leaders but verbal assurances around the fundamental freedoms that we have in Australia aren't the same as legislation.
So, the silly postal survey is asking a simplistic question whilst offering no substance or detail. I guess all my rambling is just to say I don’t know how I feel about that. I liken it to voting on the introduction of GM (genetically modified) food with all it’s unknown implications by being asked ‘do you like to eat?’
I don’t believe these are homophobic questions nor am I homophobic for asking them. I have several people in my life who are gay and I think they are all great people who I value. No these, in my mind at least, are just valid questions to a very complex matter that we really have no clarity on at this stage. Some will protest that these kinds of questions or concerns are a diversion tactic away from the ‘real issue.’ But then again, maybe calling it a diversion is in itself a diversion from other ‘real issues’ that are actually interrelated.
I can certainly acknowledge the deep desire of committed same sex couples to want freedom to formalise their relationship and I have absolutely no desire to demonise them or that desire, nor traffic fear on this topic. But I also want us to champion the other freedoms that we value in our brilliant nation.
Stepping back from all this ‘logic’ — I feel disappointed that the answer to all this tension and pain is a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’; a winner and a loser. That just doesn’t seem to be the way of Jesus. So, I wonder if there is a third way; a way of grace; of honour; and of reconciliation. I’m up for that conversation.
I hope that whatever comes, we will look back in a decade or two and be in a better place.
