YBIC,

Andrew

Blog #1: Gay Marriage in the Public Sphere

For the next four weeks, I wanted to take the opportunity to stimulate some Christian thinking on the present and future public debate about gay marriage in our country. In this first week, we will have an albeit too brief look at the political and social context of this debate in our country. Particularly I want us to understand why it is OK for Christians to lovingly join in the debate without fear of being considered “homophobic” - one of the worst labels our contemporary society can impose on a person. Next week, I will do my best to give the best secular case FOR the ability of homosexual men and women to have the right of marriage, I want us to walk a little bit in the shoes of the proponents of gay marriage. After that, I will suggest some initial thoughts on how we might respond in a loving Christian way. In the last week we will consider some implications for society and church in the (inevitable??) event that legislation for gay marriage is made legal, and to field questions from you about this topic. Please email me at andrew@stphils.org and I’ll pick a few of the best questions to respond to (please bear in mind that I’m no expert on all this, just a Christian man trying to make Christian sense of our world).

1. The social context of this debate

Let me start off by asking you: What is the real issue here in the gay marriage debate? It’s identity. I feel that if we don’t get this right, then we will end up arguing and fighting uselessly. For the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) community, sexuality is not about something that they do, it is about who they are. And so any debate about what “legal rights” exist for this community (i.e. Recognition of relationship, marriage etc...) strikes right at the heart of their identity, and becomes a moral issue: “Am I less human if I am gay?”. In fact, the LGBT community exists as a “community” because of the shared moral belief that the diversity of sexuality is part of human make-up. This is not a community that is anti-heterosexual sex, it is a community which believes that their sexual morality is legitimate and desires that their expression of relationship be recognised by the wider community as valid.

It is important to realise that in our Australian context in 2011, identity is inextricably caught up in the sum total of our rights as citizens: That a legal recognition of who we are and what we can do validates us as people. This is not a LGBT issue - all Australians think this way for right or wrong. In a given context, Christians will make appeals to our “rights” to be or to do. And this issue of “legal rights as identity” is the nexus of the debate for the LGBT community with regard to gay marriage.             

I don’t know if you feel awkward in talking about this issue with friends (I do), but the reason that this is such a “hot button issue” is that to speak against gay marriage can be perceived and “spun” as if you are denouncing the humanity of the people in the LGBT community.     

2. The political context of this debate

It is often said that Australia follows the lead of America in it’s societal values and beliefs, and so it is worth looking across the Pacific to see what is happening there. Last week, there was a lot of coverage given to the fact that the state of New York had become the sixth state in America to legislate for gay marriage. This was significant because New York is the 3rd most populous state in America, and it’s main city, New York is perhaps the most influential city in the world. In America, the federal definition of marriage is two consenting adults, one male and one female. Yet in 6 states now, that definition has been superintended by a state law. This is causing many constitutional issues at the moment, as gay people who are married in, say, Vermont (where it is legal) do not have their marriage recognised in, say, Montana (where gay marriage is not). The ultimate aim for same-sex marriage proponents is that the federal law will be changed, perhaps by the build up, state-by state of the legalisation of gay marriage. In this regard, New York’s passage of this bill was a major step in that direction.

In Australia the federal, state and territory governments share responsibility for making laws about marriage, relationships and families. Currently, no state recognises same-sex marriage, although three (Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales) have legislation before parliament.

At the moment the Labor Party’s stance on gay marriage stands in line with the current legislation, but two upcoming conferences will be worth our attention. This Saturday the Labor party of NSW will hold their annual conference and the issue of same-sex marriage will be addressed. It is possible (probable?) that the result of this conference will be a change in the Labor NSW’s stance on this issue. Although not in power, NSW Labor have some sway at the national level, and the early timing of this conference will allow the Federal Government to gauge public opinion. In November this year, the Labor Party of Australia (which is in government) will hold its National Conference and consider changing its stance on same-sex marriage. Joining these dots together, it is possible that with a different policy platform, new legislation could be tabled in the federal parliament as early as next year to change the federal law on marriage to “two persons”, in stead of “one man and one woman”. Labor doesn’t have control of the House of Representatives, and will need the independents, the Greens or some of the coalition members to vote with them. In the Senate, the Labor party and Greens together hold the balance of power, and so if the legislation passes the lower house, it will be ratified by the upper house without problem.

All this means is that the social debate about gay marriage is arriving on the political scene, and 2012 may be the year Australia joins the 11 other countries (including Canada, the Netherlands and Spain) that have same-sex marriages as part of their laws.    

3. Why Christians can and should have a voice

The idea of same-sex marriage runs contrary to the biblical teaching about what marriage is. And it is this teaching which has framed how the world heretofore has always understood marriage. To summarise:

• God built marriage into creation when he made the world, and therefore it is not social construction made by mankind (Genesis 2).
• Marriage was designed as a voluntary union between a male and a female (designed as perfect compliments to one another) joining the two into one, such that God considers married people “one flesh”. (This is reaffirmed from Genesis by Jesus in Matthew 19:1-12)
• God built marriage into creation as the only illustration in creation to point to the relationship between Jesus and his church (Ephesians 5:22-33, Revelation 19:6-9)
• Marriage is the safe-house for sex and the re-creation of children, and is therefore the prototype and foundation of good society (e.g. Genesis 1:28; 12:1-3).

So marriage is an important topic for Christians to understand, to champion and to defend when required. The notion that gay marriage is the same thing falls short of the mark – it neither sits in the pattern of the original design (point 2), nor will it point accurately to God’s eternal intention for marriage (point 3).

And so the question comes: Do Christians have the right to impose their views on a society that does not believe in Jesus? Yes, absolutely. The problem, of course, is with the pejorative word “impose”. Does the LGBT community have the right to “impose” their views on society, to advocate for what is currently illegal with the hope that it might be legalised? I hope we would all say ‘yes’. So it is with a Christian voice in Australia. The thing about the public sphere is that it belongs to no-one, and the wonderful freedom of speech we enjoy in Australia simultaneously allows the LGBT community to voice their desire to change the law and protects the Christian community’s ability to talk about Jesus (and defend marriage).

This, I hope, frees people up from the idea that to disagree or oppose the recognition gay marriage makes a person “homophobic” per se. What makes a Christian homophobic is if their opposition is bourne out of a hatred of gay people, (or worse, the notion that God hates gay people). If this is the case, such a person must confess and repent of such hatred – this is the domain of the devil. But disagreement bourne out of a love for God and a love for our LGBT neighbours is not homophobic.

As Christians, we can know what is good for society, because we know the good Lord of society. And we can let our LGBT friends around us know that they are far more valuable to God than they could ever possibly realise: that their worth and identity as people does not come from their sexuality, but rather from the fact that as people they bear the very image of God Himself. The same Lord whose gospel salvation reaches out to them (and us) with the promise being truly who we were meant to be in Jesus.

The trick, of course, is filling our hearts and correspondingly our words with the love of Jesus. And we’ll talk about that next week.

YBIC,
Andrew

p.s. Andrew Cameron’s new book “Joined Up Life” is an enormously helpful corrective to the way Christians should approach these “hot-button issues”. Chapter 44 on Homosexuality is a great chapter on the topic of engaging with the LGBT community. 

Blog #2: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage

Last week in the blog I spoke about the social and political context in which we debate the issue of gay marriage, and encouraged Christians to find a voice to speak into the debate, with love. I have been wrestling with why this is such a ‘live issue’ and the course of my thinking has lead me to try and present the best case I can for why gay marriage should be legalised in Australia. It should be noted that I’m not advocating my views here, just trying to walk a little bit in the shoes of a rational proponent with the hope that it will increase my understanding, compassion and sensitivity in reply. Feel free to let me know how I did, and shoot any questions about this issue to me via email (andrew@stphils.org), and I’ll have a go at answering them next week.

Why same-sex marriage should be legalised in Australia

The main issue here is not so much about rights, as it is about identity. I want the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) Community to be regarded in exactly the same way as everyone else, not as a special case. Whatever freedoms are extended to heterosexual Australian citizens, should be extended to homosexual ones, for no other reason than they are ordinary Australians, and their inherent sexuality does not diminish them in any way. Being gay is not a deficiency nor a disease, it is a valid part of their identity as people. When the law treats them differently, or makes exceptions for LGBT people, it tacitly isolates their diversity as abnormal. What I desire is that the marriage law in Australia will be expanded to include everyone it possibly can include, whether heterosexual or homosexual. I seek not a diminution of marriage, but an enlargement of its scope as more and more Australian citizens are granted the right to participate in an important institution in Australian society.

Laws are designed to promote "peace, order, and good government”, but whether we like it or not, laws serve to give individuals their identity in the Australian community. When it comes to marriage, the current legal definition is “...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” which means that gay couples cannot be married under Australian law. In trying to broker a compromise on the issue of gay marriage, some have suggested notions of “legal equivalency” between same-sex unions and marriage. But marriage is more than the sum total of the rights that are associated with it, it is a central part of our society. The government could award all the corresponding legal rights of marriage to a “same-sex union”, but without the identification of marriage, gay couples will never be truly considered as essential to the fabric of our nation.  

Now, I have no problem in saying that the Australian definition of marriage has been shaped from religion, especially a Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage as one male and one female. This view may have served us well in the past and lead to the society that we are today. As a proponent of gay marriage, I am not against the past, rather I embrace it and where there are problems, seek to improve it going into the future. My desire is to stand on the platform that has been built and to keep building upwards.  

In doing so, it is important to understand that despite the contributions of the various faiths to our society, Australia is a secular state, not a theocracy. Many of our laws without doubt have been infused with a Christian ideal, but our laws have distilled the religion from those ideals, meaning that we benefit from good ideas without the need to worship a God or gods in order to be lawful citizens. This means as we improve and amend our laws going forward, we don’t necessarily need any reference to an article of faith. So it is with marriage. It is the state which defines and recognises a marriage, so people in our society can enjoy the right of marriage without any imposition of religion upon their relationship. The religious and the non-religious are equally free to marry, provided they meet the criteria of marriage set by the government.

So without recourse to religion, why should the government consider the identity of same-sex relationships to be different from heterosexual ones? Two reasons are often given:

Firstly the issue of children. I acknowledge that there is much to be said on this point, but I am able to put it aside for now simply because marriage does not necessarily entail children. There are married couples who choose not to have children and there are those who through tears are unable to have children. Being married does not necessarily mean that children will be produced. So the issue here is about which consenting adults can marry.

Secondly, tradition: That Australia has always defined marriage in heterosexual terms. This is true, but historically we can also note that Australia’s civil laws evolve to correct injustices. For example, at the time of Federation, neither women, nor Aborigines had the right to vote for the Commonwealth government, yet we would all agree that we moved in the right direction when in 1902 and 1962 (!!) respectively, these laws were amended to give these parties the legal rights that had been denied them up until that point. As we look at gay rights in our country, we can see a similar pattern. For example, it was not until 1984 that NSW de-criminalised homosexuality – it was illegal to be gay according to state law before that. Consider also that openly gay people were not allowed to serve in the Australian military until 1992. In the end, when a law arbitrarily favours one party to the exclusion of another, we might consider that law to be discriminatory and not one which promotes good government.

So again: Why should the government consider the identity of same-sex relationships to be different from heterosexual ones when it comes to marriage? The movement in our de facto relationship laws is a further indication that in terms of rights and protections, there is less and less difference from a legal standpoint. Consider that:

• Heterosexual de facto relationships are equivalent to homosexual ones in eyes of the law.
• Heterosexual de facto relationships (after 2 years) have legal privileges so close to that of marriages that it is almost semantics to think of them differently in the eyes of the law.

If we reach the point where there is no legal difference between a same-sex union and a marriage, then why not embrace both under the same umbrella? What aspect of “peace, order and good government” should prevent gay relationships from being declared “ordinary”?  

In the end, legalising gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage, but rather enhance it, as Australians from a diversity of sexualities will be able to identify themselves as ‘married’. And valid minorities can start to be be embraced in a truly improved society.

Blog #3: A Christian Argument AGAINST same-sex relationships being called ‘marriage’

This is the third blog in a row to deal with the issue of same-sex marriages, and I hope it is plain to see that I’m not here to “harp on” this issue (like it's the only one that Christians talk about), but rather that this is a live and delicate issue for us right now, and we are spending time in love thinking through the dimensions of the debate that is in front of us. In the first week, we looked at the political and social context surrounding the discussion of gay marriage, and I encouraged Christians to have a voice in speaking into the conversation, without a fear of the black tar of “homophobia” being the response. Last week, I wanted to give the best case I could FOR same-sex marriage, in part for my own benefit (as I consider the issue from the other side), and in part as an important reminder that neither side has ownership of the “rational and sensible” side of the argument – that proponents for and against gay marriage can disagree and still love one another.

Disagreeing and still loving. Australians in my view are not good at holding this balance. I’m worried that Christians are not good at it either. It is far easier to stereotype, pillory and reject a person-and-everything-they-stand-for if they are “over there”, away from us. It is far easier to stand tall in self adulation and righteousness, if we never have to associate with people who disagree with us. It is far easier to depersonalise the viewpoint of someone who disagrees if we never have to interact with them, just their ideology. I wonder if sometimes churches can look more like gatherings of like-minded people, rather than collected groups of sinners, celebrating their Saviour and reminding each other about the grace of God in Christ.

At the very least if these blogs serve to cause some believers to say: “I strongly disagree with you about that, did you feel like grabbing a coffee?” then something good has happened.

That said, I do not hold the view that same-sex marriage should be legalised in Australia. As a Christian man, let me tell you why.

Why same-sex marriage should not be legalised in Australia (written to my friend in last week’s blog)

If marriage were a simple case of legal rights or identity, then I would totally agree with the argument put forward last week. But I want to suggest that marriage is plays a much larger role in society than a source of rights for an individual or a couple.

Firstly, it is important that you know that I am a Christian man, and the only reason that I feel I can contribute anything to this debate is because of Jesus. I believe that Jesus knows what is good for society because he is the good Lord of society: that he cares for people and he cares for how we relate to one another as people. Jesus himself was the perfect exemplar of the God’s revolutionary way of treating other people – seeing them as neighbours to love, not as resources to tap. He overlooked the superficial as the basis for attention and demonstrated that intrinsic to every person was a value that transcended their position in the world. Given our current topic, I should say that sexuality was no obstacle for Jesus’ impartial and whole hearted love – he cared for prostitutes and adulterers, forgiving, restoring and protecting them in exactly the same way as he did others. Jesus acutely emphasised the poor, the weak and the down-trodden as well, those for whom society had denied justice.

Jesus knew the will of God, and so his life was perfectly consistent with the good order of society that God desires for people, and therefore an understanding of Jesus promotes a “common good” for communities, whether or not such communities (and the individuals in them) acknowledge Jesus or not. To this end, I believe that justice, compassion, mercy and generosity are not human constructs, but the very character of God that may be reflected in the lives of His valuable people. As a follower of this Lord, I am compelled to “love my neighbour” and to care for my society, to fight injustices, help the poor and weak and to demonstrate the love that has been shown me. And so I wouldn’t want you to think of Christians as just another lobby group in the public sphere, speaking merely for own interest. If we are truly keeping in step with our Lord, then we speak into our society in order to persuade, encourage and advocate for society’s best, just as Jesus would. And we do this with the hope that more people would share the joy of trusting Jesus as their Lord, and following him.

I guess all this serves as the prelude for me to say that I take Jesus’ lead when it comes to understanding marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Now I agree with the point made last week that in Australia in 2011, marriage is a legal status recognised by the government, but I think we would both agree that it was neither the Australian government, nor the British government before it, that invented this societal institution. In a conversation with the lawmakers of his time, Jesus pointed out that marriage was sown into the very fabric of creation by God Himself: that the life-long joining together of two different, yet complimentary genders forms a safe-house for sex and is the best environment for the creation of children. Such families serve as the prototype and foundation of good society. I’m really glad that our government recognised the “common good” that marriage gives to a society, and so I’m thankful that marriage was given legal status in our laws. As you correctly pointed out last week, laws ought to promote “peace, order and good government” and this is certainly the case with marriage.

According to the last census, more than 60% of Australians are ‘couples’ (both heterosexual and homosexual). It is for this reason that the government needs to take the relationships of its citizens seriously – it is not that the government wants to meddle in our lives – couples form the key unit of its constituency. And the primordial notion of marriage serves to inform our society of what normal and good committed relationships look like. Marriage has nothing to learn, so to speak, from other forms of ‘coupling’. And this is true even in a legal sense. De facto relationship and civil union laws are referenced out of marriage laws. Where such laws provide legal protection and justice for individuals in committed relationships, I am supportive. But they are not marriage.

And it is important for the government to prevent certain relationships from being called marriage. Consider two consenting heterosexual adults who love each other, are committed to each other and are living together. Is it appropriate for the government to deny them the opportunity to get married if they have the same father? An advocate for these two could plead the case that their genetic make up is no fault of their own. But that our government does not allow incestuous relationships to be given the status of marriage shows that the couple is part of a wider society that the government is bound to protect and care for. It is not good for people from the same genetic line to marry, especially given the relationship of marriage to the procreation of children. This example serves as a reply to your comment last week that “the issue here is about which consenting adults can marry”. Incest is an example of where there are other issues beside consent that are taken into account.   

I know that you and I agree that marriage is a good thing, but I disagree with you that an expansion of the definition of marriage makes marriage better. Illustratively, legalising same-sex marriages dilutes what marriage is, and in turn dilutes the common good it contributes into society. Marriage is not any human love-relationship. It is a specific combination of number (two) gender (one man and one female) commitment (exclusive) and duration (life-long) that provides the building blocks to good society. If one part of the definition is assailed, then all of the definition may be. And then why does marriage matter at all?   

I believe that gay couples can enjoy the “common good” of marriage without being married. The government recognises what is good in relationships from marriage and although they have been slow to move, the government has made provisions to correct injustices and provide the freedom to make relational choices that are supported by the law. Much of the pain surrounding this issue comes when the prohibition to marry is seen as a diminution of the identity and worth of an individual or the couple in question, and that access to, as you put it last week “the core of society” is denied. To be fair, this is too much for marriage in and of itself to bear. We must abolish discrimination, and Christians, (especially Christians) should fight injustices within our society and stand up for the oppressed and downtrodden. But there is a difference between honest-to-God discrimination and an error of category. The individual rights you mentioned last week (women, Aborigines and LGBT) were good examples of legal discrimination being overcome by changes in the law. But changing the definition of marriage is not the same and does not stand in that tradition. I am not a female, a wife nor a daughter and it is not discrimination against me that I am not. In fact, I would have to change who I am to fit these categories, these categories would not change to fit around me. In a good and just society, where people are cared for, I believe that this is OK.  

Now I recognise that is much easier for me to say all of this as one who has the legal right to marriage and has in fact taken up that right. If my comments above are unloving in anyway, I certainly have not meant them to be anything more than a continuation of the conversation, a disagreement in love. For me, being married does not give anyone their intrinsic identity or value because it certainly does not in God’s eyes. I would suggest that there is room within a good society for people to have a diverse expression of sexual ideas, and that those ideologies neither have to ignore each other, nor merge together to happily co-exist.     

And if in the end, the government does legalise gay marriage, I will still be your friend and love you. It’s what Jesus would do. Now let’s go grab a bite to eat.

YBIC,
Andrew

 

Blog #4: Gay Marriage: Some Questions (inadequately) Answered

In this, the last of our blog series on gay marriage, I thought I’d answer some questions raised by this issue. As always, comments below and questions can be sent to my email (andrew@stphils.org).

Can you be a gay Christian?

I’d say: No. But you can be a Christian homosexual.

What’s the difference? For me the real question here is: “Who is Lord of your life?” and my wording here is just to try and tease out what the first identity is: Is it gay? Or is it Christian? Christians are people who trust in Jesus as their Lord. As a believer myself, I rely on Jesus as my boss, my ruler, my King. And I simply trust that he cares for me, knows what is best for me and is guiding me in the best way possible. This trust is important because sometimes His direction is not easy or painless. He desires that the best parts of me are cultivated and perfected, while my deep-seeded sin is put aside. Being a follower of the Lord Jesus involves change and growth, and there are some things that he has enabled me to quickly put down, and there are inner-battles that still wage war in me – my innermost desires wanting it, but the Spirit of God convicting me that it is not good for me. These include anger, lust, greed, pride and envy. But because my identity is in Jesus, I want to glorify God, and so I trust Jesus at His word that His way is best.

But you know what is cool? Jesus never says: get perfect before I will embrace you. He never does. He never asks us to become acceptable to him before he accepts us. Now I need to tell you that gay and lesbian sex is a sinful use of a good God-given gift to humanity from creation (along with many other heterosexual acts I should say). But do you need to stop “being gay” before you can become a Christian? Not at all. In fact the idea of Christian grace means that Jesus comes and finds us where we are. He never turns away someone who wants His help. To use some words from the Bible, at that moment, God adopts us, saves us, forgives us and cleanses us. At that moment, God looks on us and sees the perfection of Jesus. And this is an identity that no-one can steal away from us. The call upon a Christian thereafter in this life is to live-out our salvation and part of that work, like I said, will be to change and grow us so our lives will be godly. At the right time, (sometimes seconds, days, months or years later) he helps us to realise discrepancies between what we believe and how we live and that’s where in the embrace of a new identity we will want to grow for the better.  

Can a believer do something sinful? In weakness, yes. And for a time there may even be a willful falling into a pattern of behaviour that is sinful. But a genuine follower will ultimately trust that Jesus knows best for their life, hate their sin, repent of it and seek to move away from it. As a Christian man, I must move from pride, anger, greed etc... and not sit obstinately in these things. When it comes to gay and lesbian sex, can a Christian be involved in it? Yes. But knowing our identity comes from Jesus (and not our sexuality) means that, surrounded by the communal care of fellow sinners, there can be a determined effort to recognise sin for what it is and an equally determined effort to put it aside, by the grace of God.

Jesus is not really Lord in a person’s life if we’ll only have Him on our own terms.

How do I answer my gay or lesbian friend who asks me: “Why shouldn’t I be allowed to marry?”

The difficulty in answering this is the personal nature of the question, so much will depend on your relationship with the person. Perhaps you could ask a return question to remove it from a “me versus you” situation: ‘The law currently says you can’t marry – tell me why you think it needs to be changed?’ This will lead to a conversation about marriage and its impact on society – and hopefully some of my blogs of the last few weeks will provide some helpful ways of lovingly being able to engage in a fruitful discussion. As I said in the first week, this might be an implicit question of identity, where the asker is offended by the thought that they might be treated as less of a person because they are gay. The gospel of Jesus has much to tell them about their true worth in the eyes of Jesus.

Should we welcome gay married couples into church?

Yes! Of course! The church welcomed me, a man whose sin was not of a homosexual nature, but equally as offensive to God. I became a believer after (note: AFTER) a friend invited me to church to hear the gospel, and it was through the proclamation of the word of God at church that Jesus changed me. Church is a place for sinners needing forgiveness and for forgiven sinners, so of any community in society, I would rather see our LGBT friends welcomed into church, even if they come as a couple. We’re the ones who are going to have to change towards the heart of Jesus in welcoming them in.

Is there a danger that we might “normalise” gay marriage if we welcome gay couples into church?

There could be. But the nature of any potential gay common-law marriage is not a threat to God’s ultimate purpose and plan for marriage. Though equal in legal status (if passed by parliament), marriage and gay marriage are not equivalent in God’s eyes. As a pastor, I’d have to treat each situation as it comes, but some general thoughts:

• I would be praying constantly because I don’t have all the answers here.
• If they are a married couple without children, I want them to love God and their neighbour.
• If they are a married couple with children, then I want them to raise their kids in a safe and happy home. If they tell me they are Christians, I’d want them to teach their children about Jesus and to raise them Christianly.
• If one or both of them were convicted by Jesus that they could no longer be married, I would council the possibility of divorce with the provision that there was great care and love for those they had committed some responsibility for: I’d want them to love their neighbour.
• See point 1 again.
• If other people at St Phils were offended by the presence of gay married couples in our church, then I guess I’d need to find out more about their thoughts here. And feel free to look at point 1 again.

Mind you, as a preacher, I will still proclaim the full council of God and that will include calling homosexuality as Jesus does, but as I would with any person who I knew was sensitive to a life situation (e.g. abortion, divorce, betrayal etc...) I would endeavour as much as possible to speak with them ahead of the sermon about the content of what I was going to say and why. And encourage them to be there when I gave the sermon.    

Would you allow gay married couples to take communion?

As much as possible, I’d advise such a couple not to come and receive it, not because they are unloved by God, but because I would council that (a) the nature of their marriage is not consistent with the gospel life declared in the taking of communion and (b) it might be unhelpful to their church family with whom they are taking communion.

If they came up any way... I really don’t know ... Would I refuse them? Maybe I would warn them again. After all when introducing communion, Anglican liturgy is very clear with the warning that a person should examine their life before partaking, and if I had previously spoken to them and they came up anyway, then I think God’s judgement would be on the participant (“they eat and drink judgement on themselves”), not the distributor of communion. But this is a tough one. Also – at our church@10 and church@6 services, we give communion out to the congregation, so I have far less control over who can “take and eat”.

“If the law about gay marriage is changed, would you marry two lesbians, or two gay men?”

No and my Christian vocation (not to mention the love of Jesus) compels me to tell them why. But I’m not obliged to marry anyone whose marriage I think is a bad idea. I would turn away a heterosexual couple if I thought it was ungodly or unhelpful as well.

“Gay Marriage is inevitable, so let’s put our energies into fights that we could win”

Although it can sometimes seem that way as it is presented by the media in our country, I’m not sure gay marriage is inevitable – there might be other ways the government could resolve this issue. But the reason we as Christians enter this debate is that we love Jesus and we love Australia, and we want the best for our society. We ought to speak out on social issues, because it is an out-working of our faith and a pointer towards the judge and saviour Jesus. So even if the legalisation of gay marriage is inevitable, I still am happy with civil, loving and considered protest in the lead up. If anything, our voices will never be bigger on this issue until it is legalised because the debate is happening right now. And if the government makes what I believe to be a poor decision of allowing gay marriage, then we will witness Christ in submitting to the authorities that He has placed above us. We simply desire that Jesus gets the glory that He deserves and what that looks like takes great wisdom from God in every situation.

These are some all-too-brief answers, and this will be the last blog on this topic for now. Come and have a chat with me about any further questions.

YBIC,
Andrew 

The party platform now supports letting gay men and lesbians marry. And we agreed that on any parliamentary vote members can vote with their conscience so that honestly held opinions on both sides of this debate can be expressed.

Back in July, for four weeks, I spoke (hopefully in a loving way) into this issue. As you know, my desire as a Christian is for our government to continue to define of marriage as between a man and a woman. This is a law which our secular nation has which is in line with God’s desire for marriage, and is good for our society. I won’t revisit these points, but you can see all the entries if you scroll back to July.

Here are five thoughts for us in light of Saturday’s decision:

1. Pray. Let us commit this situation to our great God and Saviour Jesus. Ask for wisdom in voice and action. Pray for our church leaders who have conversational access to the leadership of the Government.

2. Consider the main issue here again. This has become a debate about “equality”. As people who love our LGBT neighbours as Jesus does, what does this debate teach us about their worldview and where they feel injustice? Are they right on some things? How might we speak the Gospel into those areas as well? (I spoke to this issue in my blog series in July).

3. Talk to our political representatives (Protest in a Godly way) In a democratically free country, we are able to protest and speak to our representatives in parliament. As a Federal Issue, our representative is Scott Morrison, whose contact details are here. In terms of an assessment of the political climate and whether or not a bill to change the definition of marriage would pass: Any bill of this nature would pass the Senate with the Greens holding the balance of power. The ‘fight’ will be in the lower house, with the Labor party allowing a conscience vote meaning that there will be a split in their voting. It will depend on whether Mr Abbott and the Liberal party allow a similar conscience vote or whether they ask their members to vote according to their party line maintaining the current definition. Most pundits suggest that the bill would be defeated at the moment in the lower house.

4. Submit to our government (even if they are wrong). We trust God is sovereign in appointing our governments (Rom 13:1) and this is no-less true even if they make decisions that oppose his Lordship.  

5. Remember that God is still in charge. We are entering a new age of challenges to the Gospel (not just this issue, but others, such as Scripture, euthanasia and bio-ethics) from a legislative perspective. And I believe an age where ambivalence to the gospel will be replaced with ignorance of the gospel – and a real opportunity for us to share Jesus afresh with generations of people who don’t know him at all. How will God use this time for his glory? Our hope is that more people become believers in the next 50 years than did in the last 50 years, so that a multitude of voices (including those from within the LGBT community) will declare Jesus as Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11).    

YBIC,
Andrew

I rang a friend of mine about 6 months ago to apologise and seek his forgiveness. He works in the music industry and things were going really well for him. He was meeting important people, doing important things and being included in circles which I wasn’t but desired to be included in. And as a musician who once tried his hand in that world I was jealous and that jealousy was affecting our friendship. As I reflected on what was going on in my heart God drove me back to a chapter in a book I read some years ago. The book is called The Trials of Theology[1] and the chapter is called Inner Circles and True Inclusion.[2] In that chapter I found this quote from Augustine who lived and knew God’s grace in the 5^th Century AD.

“There is a … kind of temptation which, I fear, has not passed from me. Can it ever pass from me in all this life? It is the desire to be feared and loved by all men, simply for the pleasure that it gives me, though in such pleasure there is no true joy.” [3]

In that quote Augustine hit with deadly accuracy the root cause of my jealousy at my friends success. I have a desire to be loved, feared, included. To be important and needed. To be great in the eyes of others. It is an insatiable desire which I carry. And not just me but every human being. We have carried it ever since our first Father and Mother ripped themselves out of the love and acceptance they knew in the hands of God in the garden of Eden. They came to know first the feeling of being outsiders[4] and humanity has strove to quench this desire ever since.

As I prepared my sermon last week on Matthew 18 I was reminded of the wonderful news of the gospel. That as Christians we are graciously loved, forgiven and accepted eternally by God before we even made ourselves humble enough to receive his grace.[5] And that in the gospel we are given the freedom and ability to put to death our desires for greatness and pursue the original way God made us; finding all our desires beautifully fulfilled in him. And in this new way of life we are free to become the servant of all, just as our Saviour was the servant of all. Though Augustine was right that this temptation will never leave us, Grace births Humility and so in Christ we are well equipped for the fight. May it be so in our lives this week.

[1] The Trials of Theology. Edited by Cameron, A. and Rosner, B. The whole book is a must read for those involved in Christian ministry.

[2] In this chapter Andrew Cameron reflects on the teaching and theology of C.S. Lewis in the subject of Inner Circles and True Inclusion

[3] The Trials of Theology. Edited by Cameron, A. and Rosner, B. Christian Focus Publishing, Geanies House, Fearn, Scotland. p87.

[4] Genesis 3:23

[5] Ephesians 1:4, Matthew 18:3

[Poppy Day] was inspired by the poem of a Canadian World War I medical officer, John McCrae, who died in 1918.

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row.

These lines are dutifully recited across the country every Remembrance Day. Seldom do we ponder the latter part of McCrae's poem, which urges the public to reject a conciliated peace and exhorts exhausted armies to fight on to the bitter end.

An American woman, Moina Michael, was so impressed by the poem that she persuaded American ex-servicemen to adopt the poppy as their emblem. French and British veteran groups followed. By 1921 more than a million red poppies were sold each year. They raised much-needed funds for men damaged by war: the gassed, the maimed, the crippled, the insane. And here we see the essential utility of the poppy as a symbol: it was intended as much to aid the living as to honour the dead.

As a metaphor for remembrance the red poppy is compelling. Poppies grow best in disturbed soil – they quickly carpeted the mud of no man's land when war finally ended in 1918. Red symbolised the blood of soldiers. And the poppy, traditionally associated with opiates, promised an end to pain. For many (then as now) this act of remembrance was a way of healing the trauma, laying to rest the demons of war.

Here is Dr Scates’ conclusion:

Those who wore white poppies asked for a stronger statement, an admission that lasting peace could not be achieved by human conflict, a recognition that only reconciliation and tolerance could unite rather than divide the nations (and religions) of the world, a call for peace with justice.

As Christians we know where it is that peace can be found with justice. Jesus – the eternal God – took on flesh and declared war on sin and death. He went up against that which could not be defeated and he smashed it. He went down into death and exploded it from the inside as he rose again. The Bible says that Jesus has the keys to death and Hades. He has gone down into the prison and he has opened the cage door. And he has won back freedom and eternal life for his people. God is a warrior. Jesus is a soldier who went into battle and won. Remembering our King is therefore at the centre of our faith.

For their devotion to God and country, our bravest are given the Cross of Victoria. For His faithfulness to God Jesus was given a cross of calvary. By their bravery our soldiers won peace for the world. By his bravery, Jesus won peace for eternity. So on a day where we are thankful for, and remember self sacrificial bravery, let us remember our warrior God. Lest we forget indeed.

YBIC,
Andrew



In 1934, 2000 Lutheran pastors organized the Pastors’ Emergency League in opposition to the state church controlled by the Nazis. This organization evolved into the Confessing Church, a free and independent protestant church. Bonhoeffer served as head of the Confessing Church’s seminary at Finkenwalde. The activities of the Confessing Church were virtually outlawed and its five seminaries closed by the Nazis in 1937.

Bonhoeffer’s active opposition to National Socialism in the thirties continued to escalate until his recruitment into the resistance in 1940. (from: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

All this culminated in Bonhoeffer being party to a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler’s life. He was captured and he, and his co-conspirators were executed on April 9, 1945.

Perhaps his most famous book, The Cost of Discipleship, documented what he understood about following Christ. He warned Christians about the perils of what he called “cheap grace”:

Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

We see cheap grace in the idea that we are more than happy to take the salvation of Jesus and his promise heaven, while never really putting him as King and Lord of our lives. In that way, we see Christ’s grace as ‘cheap’, without real value in this life. Bonhoeffer said that the opposite was true, that our salvation was bourne out of costly grace:   

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: 'Ye were bought at a price', and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

And this fits perfectly with call of Jesus from our passage on Sunday, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.”

"The cross is laid on every Christian. The first Christ-suffering which every man must experience is the call to abandon the attachments of this world. It is that dying of the old man which is the result of his encounter with Christ. As we embark upon discipleship we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with his death—we give over our lives to death. Thus it begins; the cross is not the terrible end to an otherwise god-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ. When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow him, or it may be a death like Luther’s, who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world. But it is the same death every time—death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man at his call.

And so here’s Bonhoeffer’s question for us as we consider our lives in service of God: Is there anything we would not give up for Jesus?

YBIC,
Andrew  

34 To crush underfoot
   all prisoners in the land,
35 to deny a man his rights
   before the Most High,
36 to deprive a man of justice—
   would not the Lord see such things?

What will the Lord do?
Isaiah 9:7:
Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

YBIC,
Andrew