News that so-called "church leaders"in the swinging NE suburban seat of Florey have intimated they will use their political influence to get people to vote against MP Frances Bedford(pictured right) is an interesting conundrum.(see here).Her crime? It would seem is being part of a government promoting rights for same-sex couples. Rights which these religious folk say undermine the institution of marriage.
I fail to see this but I shall return to that in a moment.
I am a Christian who believes that the church should use its political influence and not allow itself to be sidelined as if we believed nothng of importance whatsoever.
I would not, however, align myself with the narrow anti-homosexual sentiment which seems to obsess some other Christians. Yes! "obsess" is indeed the word. For the life of me I cannot understand why so much effort is put into condeming gay people, and so little effort into critquing the materialism and selfishness of this world, which seems to me to do so much more damage. Where is the strident criticism of governments who steadfastly erode the welfare benefits of so may in our society?
Where are the "church leaders'"letters saying they will persuade their followers to vote against those who do not actively promote the caus of justice for the poor.
If the balance of scripture is to be weighed it is quite evident that the prophets condemn injustice and exploitation much more than they condemn homosexuality. If the words of Jesus are to be heeded, he does indeed condemn exploitation and injustice. I hear no specific utterance of his about homosexuality.
So what is the obsession of these latter day Christians based on. Why so focussed on and vitriolic against homsexuality? I look forward to being enlightened.
Why choose to reverse the emphasis of the scripture, and neglect social injustice, exploitation of the poor, and the greed of the rich?
Undermining marriage
I fail to see, too, that seeking equal justice for all people....for example why should a gay partner not have access to their partner's superannuation, or carer's leave entitlements...if that is the way they have chosen to order their affairs.
And how exactly does this undermine marriage?
Personally, as a sacramentalist, I hold a much higher view of marriage than society holds. And, I do not see how God's sacred institution will be undermined . What God chooses to do through marriage is not limited to what the law defines, it is a spiritual mystery...powerful in intent, and magnificient in what it achieves.
It is not, however, the only way of ordering relationships. Three maiden ladies, for example, living together in friendship and companionship is a way some I have known have stabilised heir lives. Their arragement is fine. It does nothing to undermine marriage. Likewise, single people who choose to live alone do not undermine marriage.
Marriage is stronger than that.
I want to affirm that we should be just, and not unjust. We are not at liberty to use our faith to justify injustice against others.
10 comments:
It seems to me, that some of the heat could be taken out of this ridiculous uproar about same sex union by giving it a name other than marriage, but affording the same rights as marriage affords. Then it does nothing to marriage, it is not marriage, it is whatever it is called, and honoured and respected as such.
I agree. Traditional theology would not consider a same-sex union to be "marriage", as marriage is quite definitely defined as between a man and a woman. This doesn't mean that other arrangements are not possible.
And does not mean that "other arrangements" threaten the definition of marriage...I actually believe that marriage is more secure than that!
It is like saying that "family" can only be defined as 'parents and children living together'...in which case my grandmothers didn't live in families for the last twenty years of their lives.
Except that they did! Just not as narrowly defined
Groan!
Obsessed is not a strong enough word for this absolute fixation that people have on the issue of homosexuality, and particularly on the status of homosexual people in the church.
This is a malignant homing in on some verses of scripture, while other parts of scripture (eg Matthew 5:22-25 and Matthew 28:19-20) get chucked into the rubbish bin along with the food scraps.
We (in the Uniting Church) are all so busy flinging invective and accusations at each other in our polaring debate over the ordination of "practicing homosexuals", that we cannot be bothered about little things like evangelisation, about minor tasks like sharing the Good News with the large majority of our fellow Australians who haven't heard it (not in a way that they can understand and absorb, that is). And now we have some church leaders seeking to widen their power base and take up positions of power in the broader political and social arena.
Sometimes I think the church is truly stuffed and has surrendered its privilege of being called The Body of Christ. It's only the example of the martyrs (like Bonhoeffer and King) and the saints (like Griffith and Teresa) that keep me in hope that one day the church (that is, the one universal holy and apostolic church) may rediscover who and what it is really about.
Gah!
Well as I say it is a mystery where all this heat comes from.
A colleague of mine had some detailed reflexions on scapegoating as a social technique.
In a sense we give ourselves identity by demonising others. But in reality we diminish ourselves, don't you think?
It seems to me extremism...of what ever hue is actually a way of exclusion rather than inclusion....this is contrary to the fundamental nature of Anglicanism. It si contrary to the "universal" sense of what it means to be catholic. Jesus did nto seek to create a sectarian society but a catholic/universal one....too bad his followers don't get that
Perhaps it's yet another form of tribalism.
Look at the fierce denominationalism that infects a lot of the church - even in the Uniting Church more than 25 years after Union, the old Methodist and Presbyterian factions can still be discerned. Lightly scratch one of the elderly congregations which make up much of the Uniting Church these days and watch all the old prejudices against Roman Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentacostals et al. spill out of the wound.
It's a pretty sad situation if we can only define ourselves in terms of who and what we are against.
Well all tribes have homosexuals!!
And I am unhappy too about the notion that the ones who are most deeply troubled by homosexuality, or perhaps the most vocal, are those who have much to be troubled about in their own lives!! A bit too simplistic.
Some interesting research done this year on smell and sexual orientation...could it be all so simple?
Stephen said "It seems to me extremism...of what ever hue is actually a way of exclusion rather than inclusion....this is contrary to the fundamental nature of Anglicanism. It si contrary to the "universal" sense of what it means to be catholic. Jesus did nto seek to create a sectarian society but a catholic/universal one....too bad his followers don't get that"
I think most of His followers DO get that. It is just that people interpret God's word differently, and some have gone so far away from it that some churches offer little more than a "feel good" club or on the other side, what amounts to a moral straightjacket.
I also don't believe that God has any interest in "Anglicanism" - why would he?
Sheila
Sheila I agree with a lot of what you say, though I think your final jibe about God not having any interest in Anglicans is pretty rude!!
It's also pretty presumptuous to suggest that you have some special knowledge of what God does or doesn't have an interest in.
As a person (who happens to be an Anglican) I DO know that God has interest in me.
My point about God being catholic rather sectarian is that God is more widely universal than we give her credit for! It is we who are sectarian not God.
I don't know if you know much about the Anglican church, it certainly is not....in my estimation a "feel good club" those days are long over.
It is extraordinarily uncomfortable, and no current Anglican would remain so simply because it feels good. I think many of us have considered terminating our relationship with the Anglican church.
For me, at least, that is not what I think God want me to do.
Stephen, please re-read my post. I didn't write what you said - that God didn't have any interest in Anglicans. I believe that God has a intimate interest in every one of his children! So please don't think that I was being rude in that regard. On the other hand I must agree with you re my presumptuousness, and of course I certainly don't have any 'special' knowledge.
I am a Christian who attends an Anglican church, so we have at least that in common and no doubt much more. I was talking about individual churches, not the Anglican Church as a whole, which I guess is what you are talking about? May I ask why you considering leaving the Church?
Sheila
Sheila, sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying.
I am very proud to be an Anglcian. This is a hard thing to say because there is much about it that is not nice, and a lot of nasty stuff has been exposed recently.
Some of this has caused me to think of throwing in the towel at times in the past. But I come back to God's faithfulness to me and know that for what ever reason I am sort of doing what I ought to be.
Sooooo! I am not thinking of leaving the church, even though there is much about it I don't like. I am stuck with it...and happy to be so at the moment.
Its trials are my trials, and I accept them for what they are.
Post a Comment