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.

Discursive terrorism!

I have some sympathy with the lovely British comedian Jason Manford who got caned by Facebook (shame on them) for declaring that these 'idealists'  are in actual fact cowards.
To be fair he said a bit more than that but I don't think his observations were misplaced

To open fire on unarmed civilians, is not bravery and idealism.

It is total and utter cowardice

It is bullying and thuggery.

I imagine the prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, would be deeply ashamed of the evil that is perpetrated in his name. 

I have been interested about my own reflections, and those who live hand-in-glove with me about what this means.

As I drove into Adelaide yesterday (quietly on Sunday at about 8 a.m.)  I thought about how we might feel about such awfulness. Then cast my mind back 24 hours....the Christmas Pageant.

My granddaughter (10 months old ) was present....and loved it. 

200-300K people present just celebrating their community life....what if a bomb? or a gunman..?  it doesn't bear thinking about.   But my conversations led me to believe I was not the only one who thought this thought!

So I don't emir from J Manford's sentiment

Equally well, as my eldest daughter and I were practising speaking French, we spoke about the Tour Eiffel.   How it had been evacuated; and how easily three or four well-placed bombers could have taken it out.....shudder!

Surely these mad boys ( for such they are...BOYS....will blog about this shortly) don't want to live in a world in which families cannot have lunch together, or friends laugh with each other....

Having been a boy, I know that boys are not that bright!   They get enthused. But we are a bit thick!

Easy targets for unscrupulous propagandists who convert their stupidity to misguided 'enthusiasm'...which is a most dangerous thing!

Devastation

The last time I went to Europe I came back and said....I don't need to go to Rome again (don't let me fool you...if you'll pay I'll go!) and I don't need to go to London again (see above) 
BUT if I never go to  Paris again then I will feel diminished 
This last attack threatens that.
I do not want to never be able to go to Musee D'Orsay, to the Picasso Museum, the Rodin Gallery...and to Notre Dame.
Mind you (going back to Rome) I love the Lateran Basilica and assisted at Exposition for a week!

#racism My theory

My theory is that Australians have always struggled with multiculturalism.
This is hilarious if it were not so serious!.

Let me however trace (inadequately)  my 40+ year experience of living in Australia
We came to live in Australia in 1967. It was MUCH more ethnically diverse than rural NW England.
There had been lots of Italians, Spaniards and Yugoslavs (as they were wrongly termed  then....see flags attached of kingdom break up)
In my High School class there were Anglo-Australians, Maltese, French & Spaniards.
In later years I went out with an Italian, my sister with a Croatian, and we ended up marrying into an Italian family; a Polish, Welsh Family; an early Yorkshire and Australian family; we have not yet married into an indigenous family, nor an African family, or an Asian family.
My daughters mock me (surprise surprise) " "Dad wants us to to marry an indigenous or Asian person". I would be more than happy
I suspect that this is the experience of most 'Australian' families.
My dearest (Welsh) friend was married to a Latvian Gentleman.  I use the term 'gentle' deliberately. He was highly intelligent. He was gentle and respectful.
Anton, I salute you!   As his extraordinary wife died, her faith; his partnership  was outstanding.


I have gone on.

My point is.......all our lives were transformed...when we encountered people who were outside our comfort zone. But
I would suggest
truly enriched

Caution about intolerance

Although it looks as though Abbott will pressure the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate to backdown on not allowing  women wearing Islamic religious dress to sit in the Gallery opf the Parliament; It remains to be seen if that will actually happen. 

I suspect it will. But we shall see.

The Abbott machine has obviously sussed out very quickly that the community is "not very happy" about the arbitrary erosion of religious freedom

One of the great problems is that the non religious community is pretty unaware of what such things are all about. And often use such issues for expressions of fear, intolerance and....frankly    ignorance.

Most of us, for example, are not aware that there is a variety of religious garb...quite a good article on the ABC News website here.

I also have often made the observation that you don't have to go very far to find that the sort of criticisms that today are offered about Islam, or Judaism, Hare Krishnas...could just as easily be fired at Christians.

The typical characterisation of "cults" for example...that people sell up their lives and give their money to the faith body; make acts of commitment and ultimate obedience....could just as easily be aimed at many Christians.

Indeed I make the observation : would nuns of the most conservative Christian traditions (like the one that Senator Bernardi and Mr Abbott belong to) also be banned because their bodies and faces can't be readily identified.

I know that lots of modern nuns don't wear habits at all. And most people don't understand what they are all about it. Some of it is anachronistic (see below)...but in a pluralistic and democratic society people are allowed to choose to be religiously conservative ...even if you or I would not choose to be so.

Heartening

It is deeply encouraging to hear so many voices of the local Woodside community speak out in support of the Inverbrackie option. Scratch an Australian and you are unlikely to find someone who will think that people down on their luck should not be given a fair go. When we put aside the political point-scoring most of us would agree that there is nothing to be gained by making those who are already dislocated suffer any more than they have to. Because others in the world treat asylum seekers badly, does not mean that we have to. I would actually have thought the reverse is true if we are genuinely a civilized nation.

When enough is enough!

One of my Facebook friends draws our attention to this post of Bp John Spong who opens with the gambit that he has decided he is no longer going to dignify the discussion about homosexuals in the life of the Church by trying to convince bigots that they are wrong. (see here)

The good Bishop does have a point.

There is much of what he writes that I do not agree with, but I have always admired the way he makes people think, myself included.

I therefore have some reservation about a 'manifesto' that says there will be no more discussion; but I can understand how one can get to this point. There is too little time to waste it trying to convince people who just aren't even prepared to listen constructively to another viewpoint.

I got to this point in the debate in the Australian Church about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

For two decades we were told that we should all be open & listen to those of differing viewpoints. That culminated in a whole series of toings and froings and pseudo church legal proceedings which seemed to resolve nothing (see a time line here) Finally when the Bishop of Canberra was ready to go ahead an injunction was taken out in the NSW Supreme Court to prevent him from doing so. I felt deeply saddened, and wondered why those who kept saying that their opposition was 'scriptural' seemed to have forgotten the scriptural injunction to not take your fellow Christian to court (see 1Cor 6:1-10 for St Paul's very strong teaching on this ).

This was a watershed experience for me, I realised that however tolerant I and my ilk were prepared to be the other side were not playing by the same rules. Indeed today, 20 years later, they still do not appear to have shifted. Indeed in the Diocese of Sydney it appears that things are worse. Even though ....but that's a whole other issue :)

My point?

Like the good Bishop, I can understand there comes a point when you realise that continuing on being 'tolerant' and 'fair' is actually aggravating the situation.

I am not quite at that point with the gay issue, but pretty close!

The Bells! The Bells!

I once thought that I would like to purloin the unused bell from St Barnabas' College and have it here at Blackwood.

However a number of things dissuaded me.One, the thought of being woken on Saturday nights by hoodlinks who just wouldn't be able to resist it. Two, my near neighbour, who finds our presence difficult enough.

So it was interesting to hear as ABC began their countdown of the top 100 symphonies that Rachmaninov 's Opus 35 The Bells Symphony-brought out a spontaneous lament from all over the country about the fact that bells have gone.

It is of course one of those things that gives some poetic coherence to community, links with the past; ordering of the day etc. etc....but we are so fearful about Christianity impinging on popular culture. Not so much the signs of the other religions, but another point at which Christianity as the 'religion'of the dominant culture is both patronised and compromised

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!