Some more reflections on the language of marriage

The Marriage Equality debate for me is one of social justice.
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.
I  ( and most other commentators) am not at all convinced (along with mainstream political and language/linguistic) theory that language is neutral.
Basically...you open your mouth, or your pen hits the the paper and you have already declared a whole lot of stuff that you you may or may not wish to have disclosed.
So The Marriage Equality (my preference) discussion is subject to all sorts of renaming..eg:

Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage

These both suggest that there are different types of marriage.
Obviously 'different types' of marriage does not suggest equality!

As a Christian I am well aware that conservative, right wing groups do not represent me (see below).
They are very strident and specific about using exclusive terminology 
as long as we describe marriage with other descriptors eg same-sex or Gay   then we are capitulating to the idea that marriage is not a Universal right, or that there are different types of marriage. Which is nonsensical!

To me I reiterate:
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.

But let me also add a discourse about the dilemma for Christians...particularly those of us who are NOT of the narrow/fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal, right-wing perspective




Let me not begin to treat on the so-called Australian Christian Lobby, (ACL) I have already made a number of posts here, and occasionally written a few letters to the paper (see below(1)) about this misnomer

They are indeed "Australian"...
but "Christian"  is not an accurately inclusive descriptor...most ACL members are one or more  of evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal.
This may be a controversial statement...they (ACL) are no doubt Christian, but are they Universal (ie representative of ALL Christians)?  I would suggest No!

Indeed I, and many others in mainstream Churches are not only unrepresented  by ACL but at odds with their narrow, legalistic, moralistic, puritanical version of Christianity.
Which seems to me at odds with the Jesus who welcomed prostitutes, sinners and tax collec
tors

In traditional parlance  the universal term for all Christians is Catholic (not Roman ...which is only part of the Universal)
The Catholic Church consists of ALL Christians (not just the Roman). The ACL is certainly not representative of that Universal Church

________________________

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

\

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.

To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.

So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  

I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

Wish I was more optimistic about hate speech

I have said on numerous occasions that "Australian Christian Lobby" is a total misnomer. This ragtag group of aggressive evangelical/pentecostal people ( not ALL Pentecostals or Evangelicals by any means but certainly a significant and outspoken number) . I have been an Australian for over 50 years and I have been a Christian for almost 67 years...and in NO WAY does the ACL represent me...or most of the Australians or Christians I know. I find their theology violent and unloving...and indeed un-Christian. I would urge other Christians and Australians to repudiate their hate-filled homophobic agenda...I am not optimistic!!

Here we go again

The current furore about whether or not 'religious' organisations ...schools in particular...but maybe also hospitals, caring organisations, etc.etc....should be allowed to exercise discrimination against homosexual people is an important discussion that's waiting to be had.
I am not given to agreeing with Jim Wallace of the very inaccurately named Australian Christian Lobby, but I did hear him say today something like "Let's face it employers discriminate against all sorts of people"
He is of course correct. Research shows for example that overweight people are less successful at job interviews. Who is to know,too, if an employer has chosen to employ a man instead of a woman, or vice versa? Unless the offender of course decides to fess up
But I want to know if conservative religious employers are going to expect to be allowed to discriminate against fornicators and adulterers. Of course there are millions more of these than there are of gays...Again research tells us that young American Christians have  almost same attitudes to sexual morality as their non Christian counterparts.
I also want to know what gives any religious employer the right to think that, in so far as work is concerned,  they should be allowed to even remotely discuss what a person...gay or straight...does in the bedroom

Sexy but staid

I am not at all culturally disposed to be a Baptist. 
Despite the fact that two of my children and my s-i-l find comfort there in these days.
But good old staid North Adelaide Baptist puts out a wonderfully Katholick (with a capital K) message
God is inclusive not EXclusive.
The Creed(s) talk of one holy catholic church.
Now....I could as a preacher/spirituality aficionado/theologian go on for hours
But I return to the most famous verse of scripture
John 3:16
God
so loved
the world
that he gave
his only begotten Son
so that everyone who believes is him
should not perish  but have eternal life.

To many ( should that be ( too many))  of my fellow sisters and brothers in Christ that seems to suggest that God is more interested in casting people out than bringing people in.
That, I suggest,  is a travesty. 

God so loves the whole (catholic ) world
that he doesn't want less than everything

The so called Australian Christian Lobby ( how dare they presume to use such universal (catholic) terminology ?)

Their exclusivity is rejected by many, many...probably most...Australian Christians.
Who do not think that God rejects homosexual people at all
...or more importantly
thinks
they do not need rejecting
and they do not require accepting
Because God already embraces us all in Christ.
NO ONE is beyond the pale

NO ONE is beyond the reach of God's love.

Not everyone agrees

The Dean of Darwin, Jeremy Greaves, notes on his Facebook page 

"Phone call from the Australian Christian Lobby started well but ended quickly. Was there anything I wished them to communicate to the Chief Minister when they meet next week? I suggested they start by telling him they don't speak for all Christians."

This is important stuff, though simple and small. It is easy for the brash and the bold to put themselves out there as the voice for us all.
"What?" we might ask, "if we don't want you to speak for us?"
More than that, I would also want to say that so often , my brothers and sisters in Christ, you actually are saying the opposite of what I believe.
Where I want to articulate the Gospel of the Jesus who welcomes everyone, you are saying that Jesus only wants people who fit into your narrow mindset of what it means to be human.
Thank goodness for places such as the Cathedral in Darwin  which say 

Above all else, we are an inclusive church. This means that all are welcome to attend, and that all are welcome to receive communion no matter what church or faith (if any) they are from. Different opinions and varying faith journeys are one of the strengths of the Cathedral community.

Hurrah for diversity and inclusivity. Shame on those who think that any are beyond the reach of Christ, or that Christ cannot love those who we find distasteful, unloveable, different or disgusting. 

Foxes find holes

A story doing the rounds in the US press (here) about the erstwhile Iraqi veteran who, in declaring himself to be atheistic, finds himself under attack from his alleged comrades (perhaps not a word you would use in the Amercian military).
Having to be put under protection because of his open atheism, there are huge questions here about what sort of society America actually promotes when it can't even tolerate a modicum of difference amongst its own.
We are not talking here apparently about a couple of fundies from the wild hills of Kentucky..or is that Dakota...or are they Black Hills...but you get the point. But ranking officers who tell an atheist who doesn't want to pray that he is some how threatening the glorious constitution, or that when a couple of them want to meet together to discuss their common plight they are some how threatening the war effort.
It makes the Australian Christian Lobby (here) look positively smart by comparison.
More significantly it suggests how ill-founded this particular Iraqi war is.
In the minds of many in power not about democracy at all, but about some curious religious view which doesn't tolerate difference even amongst its own.
The problem is not that people shoudn't be allowed to hold whacky or inconsistent views; the problem is that when it is officers who hold people's lives in the palms of their hands, and they are manifestly confused about what they are on about.
Here for example

in July, while still in Iraq, Hall organized a meeting of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. According to Hall, after things began, Maj. Freddy Welborn disrupted the meeting with threats saying he might bring charges against Hall for conduct detrimental to good order and discipline, and that Hall was disgracing the Constitution. (Err, I think the major has that backward.) Welborn has denied the allegations, but the New York Times reports that another soldier at the meeting said that Hall's account was accurate.

What sort of democracy, freedom, religion, tolerance etc.etc is being promoted?
This stuff, to my mind, is slippery.....and really really scary!