The debate on same sex marriage that I participated in recently exposed me to more than just differing views for and against a legal imprimatur on marriage for homosexual people. It raised questions for me about Australia’s societal values, where they’re headed, and just who exactly is driving them.
For reasons that seem obvious to me, religion is out-of-favour; I say that as a person who has little interest in ‘religion’ per se, but great interest in God. People identifying as Christians have had a long and comfy ride, ever willing to point out the faults (as they see them) in others, ever hesitant to spend too much time before a mirror – ‘spiritual, social vampires’, if you will. But do we throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water? In the shipwreck of Christian life in secular Australia, is it now a case of moral anchors aweigh?
Whatever criticism could be fairly levelled at Christians throughout the relatively few years of federated Australia, the bedrock of this faith has, arguably, provided Australia with a magnificent start and a clear view of the future. Notwithstanding the diverse flavours touted by its proponents, its message has been singular in the sense of morality. An invisible God, who lays out a pattern for living a life considerate of Him, others and self, with His magnetic goodness to maintain your interest and compliance - sounds Utopian. Of course, the practical application of this sometimes lacks polish, human fallability clouding what might otherwise shimmer with pristine clarity.
Historically, Australia has been anchored in a morality defined outside itself; that is, that presented in the Bible, and as such it had a way of monitoring change and waywardness. Even the most basic of principles afforded under the 10 commandments, for example, provided a clear and simple foundation for judging appropriate behaviour and creating law. Today’s Australia, however, has not so much lost touch with this benchmark, as willingly and forcefully rejected it. It is now adrift in a sea of ‘me-ism’, where the war to reconcile one persons ‘rights’ with everyone else’s wages incessantly. The constant cries of dissatisfaction, arising from intersecting interests, hum in the background like an angry wind through the rigging. The moral standard, once visible from afar, is now sunken like a submerged water marker. What we have in its place is not a standard but a moving average, the poles of which are set at the most debase and most noble notions society can muster, with the nobility pole ebbing ever closer to its debase counterpart.
Australia, don’t allow yourself to drift; drop anchor in a safe harbour.
52 comments
Monsignor
January 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Hi Roy
No offence taken; not at all.
Put it this way, I don’t think there is a moral question God could not address. He has information we don’t. We just do the best we can with what we have.
I wouldn’t say we are “left” in the sense of abandonment, but encouraged to seek out truth; yes.
I apologise if I sounded arrogant (something we Christians seem well practised in). I’m interested in what you mean when you say you were”raised a Christian”. Does this mean your parents/guardians were believers and you participated in their faith (as a child would), or did you have an experience of your own with Christ? Did you “…understand what it is to have faith in God.” from a practical or theoretical position?
I’m genuinely happy you were able to find joy in a “religious experience” – are you willing to define that? Personally I have a disregard for religious activity. My experience is that it is so often about appearance that it is nearly meaningless. If you’ve had a different experience I’d appreciate hearing about it.
[If I presented you with evidence of God’s existence do you think you would change your view? What evidence would you require?]
I see. What conclusive evidence has convinced you that there is no God, particularly given your confessed understanding of a life of faith?
By “God” I mean an invisible dude with a long grey beard that lives in the sky with two mates, made everything, loves us and wants us to love Him (let’s just keep the definition simple shall we?).
[There is always a reason that a person considers a particular thing to be moral, and either those reasons themselves are truthful, good and just, or they are not.]
I guess that depends on what you believe about God. I believe God is all three of those things (truthful, good and just), therefore I trust what He says to flow from that character, and be continually consistent with it. I don’t expect a person who does not believe that about God to agree with me, or to necessarily understand.
J
Monsignor
January 12, 2012 at 7:11 am (UTC 8) Link to this comment
I’ve tried to watch this but it didn’t work. Will have to muscle my kids of the home computer at some point and try again. Betty Bowers – sounds interesting.
Monsignor
January 16, 2012 at 7:01 am (UTC 8) Link to this comment
I wouldn’t say I was offended by that video Roy, and I did appreciate the style of humour used to make the point; however I don’t feel like it is directed at me, and I don’t get offended on God’s behalf.
I did feel sad watching it though; two reasons spring to mind: I think because I see, in that video, a push back against Christians for what probably amounts to a lack of demonstrated godly love over my life time, and perhaps all time (I am guilty too). Sad also because some people will have an already darkened view of God reinforced for the sake of a few laughs.
Those things aside, the truth about God, His nature, can be known. I believe that to be true in spite of a world of unbelief.
Roy
January 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
But what is your response to its message about “Traditional Marriage” and its (I think rather strong) argument against a religious basis for saying “same sex marriage is immoral”?
Monsignor
January 18, 2012 at 4:02 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
It uses out-of-context information to build a parody of the Bible and I assume, a general view of marriage by Christians. So, my response is to say that I took it to be humour, nothing more. Some things just aren’t worth discussing; this would be one of them for me.
If you want to find and summarise a point of discussion from that video that you think is worthy of inspection I’d be happy to go over it with you.
Roy
January 21, 2012 at 7:47 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Good suggestion. So let’s focus on the following point of discussion from the video:
One cannot argue that “same sex marriage is immoral” with respect to Christian morals as manifested in the Bible, without acknowledging that – by the same standards – numerous other forms of marriage ARE moral, including marriage between siblings, with slaves and whores, etc. — See the video. One concludes, therefore, that the Bible is NOT a good standard by which to judge the morality of different kinds of marriage.
If we “pick and choose” which parts of the Bible to listen to, then we require some other source of moral guidance, to know which parts to pick…….
Monsignor
January 25, 2012 at 7:33 am (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Hi Roy,
I agree with the notion that double standards are no standards; I think that’s where you’re going with that?
Can you please find me in the Bible where marriage to siblings is promoted as moral? I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying it is not promoted as moral.
I think it’s worth remembering that the Bible is more than just a morality guide, it is an historical record also. King David, whom God described as “a man after His own heart” committed murder, but we don’t say that murder is moral because David did it, and God approved of David. God approved of “the sum” of David, his nature, not an act committed in exception to that.
As for marriage to slaves and whores, I would marry either one tomorrow if circumstances favoured it. Either Jesus died a death that paid the penalty for all sin, for all people, or He did not. Incidentally I don’t see being a slave as having moral connotations.
Yes, if one did not know any better, and treated the video as accurately reflecting the Bible, one could conclude that.
True enough. I don’t think we should pick and choose.
J
Roy
January 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Ah, so you interpret the Bible literally. I must admit that’s somewhat unexpected. In that case, it seems I need to go back to the Bible and find some concrete examples of strange things that are “promoted as moral”. For me to understand what you mean by “promoted as moral”, could you please tell me the passages where you believe same-sex marriage is “promoted as immoral”?
(oh, and for the record, by “marriage with slaves and whores” I meant forced marriages.)
Monsignor
January 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Hi Roy,
In my view reading of the Bible, as with any other literature, or
everyday speech for that matter, is a combination of literal and
figurative interpretation. It is not an ‘either/or’ choice.
Don’t feel obliged to do that; particularly on the back of your
assertion that I have a bias toward literal reading of the Bible.
However, if you want to do it, I’d be happy to discuss your findings.
No, because I don’t believe there are any such versus in scripture. To
the best of my knowledge marriage is only ever discussed in the
context of a man and his wife. Same gender sexual activity and
effeminacy is warned against. It follows, by inference, that a same
sex union in marriage is also to be avoided.
To clarify my position on this; I do not see this as making homosexual
people different to me in terms of the errors we make as humans. It is
easy for me to resist homosexuality because I have no attraction to
my gender. However I am weak in many areas of my life that many [a] homosexual
[person] people may not be. The conclusion I come to is to avoid whatever I
can, not judge those who can not, and to thank God for His grace (in
Christ) to cover me when I stuff things up – which is daily.
I have not researched this before answering you, but I can think of one
occasion (off the top of my head) where God instructed a prophet to marry a whore;
the prophet chose to obey God. If you examine the reason why God did
this it is because He was building a picture of the behaviour of the
Israelites at the time, and making a point to them about it, but also
His strong love for them. As I said, I’m no Bible scholar, and I have
not looked this up. If you want me to elaborate further I can look
into it.
I do not understand the morality issue about slaves. Perhaps there was
some rule for the Levites not to do such things – I don’t know. The
Levites were a tribe of Israel who were set aside as priests of whom
God had specific requirements under God’s Law (the Law).
What we have to remember is that the need, under the Law, to do (or
omit to do, as the case may be) what we would now look at as peculiar
types of things (e.g. animal offerings as atonement for sin) was done
away with under Christ (the new covenant). The sacrifice He made gave
us all access to the Father through a righteous advocate; Jesus. *Jesus became the atonement for
all sin, all time and all people with His death on the cross and
subsequent resurrection.
J
Edit:
* This is the ‘good news’ of the Bible!
Roy
February 3, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
I’m sure you don’t mean that the Bible is just like “any other literature”. Surely you treat it differently. Anyway…..to be honest, I don’t want to talk about the Bible any further. It bores me, as I place no greater important on it than “any other literature” of the era, most of which I suspect is at least as homophobic as the Bible. No offense.
I might return to your post of January 11th at some point. I’m getting quite weary, though, because if all it takes for you to oppose marriage equality is that “same gender sexual activity and effeminacy is warned against” in a very, very old book, then there’s not much more to discuss.
Monsignor
February 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm (UTC 8) Link to this comment
You’ve done an amazing job staying as long as you have Roy.
I will try to make a more in depth reply next week. Have a good weekend
Monsignor
February 6, 2012 at 8:03 am (UTC 8) Link to this comment
Hi Roy,
Debates about how I read the Bible are a distraction from the real point – its message. As we’ve already discussed elsewhere we can see there is not a lot to be said about homosexuality in its pages. What little is said about it is, like it or not, unfavourable.
The real message, the only one that matters, is that God sent his Son to suffer for our wrong doing, so that we may all live. So all this other stuff we rattle on about, Christian or not, does not matter in the light of Christ and the forgiveness we have access to through Him.
I treat the Bible differently because of its message; elsewise it is nothing more than a book, like any other.
Ok. If you choose to do so that would be good.
Hidden in the message of that “very, very old book” is hope. Homosexual people are included in that hope, we all are.
Given your weariness of the subject I will not drag it out further.
J
« Previous 1 2 3