Pushing for Same Sex Marriage?

We were at a rally on the weekend, with some of our kids. It was a peaceful protest against the "Safe Schools" program in schools, but I don't think our kids felt very safe among the counter-protesters. Of course, the "Safe Schools" issue is bundled together with the question of "Same Sex Marriage", and changing the definition of marriage in Australian law. Sadly it feels like this decision is trying to be pushed through by wearing people down, guilt-tripping peer pressure, intimidating aggression and/or fear tactics. I hope that is not really representative of the SSM advocates, but then I guess they are copying what they see happen in the main political arena (and what too often is the common modus operandi of how to get things done generally, whether even inside of the church as well as outside).

The question about redefining marriage is an incredibly significant policy decision for our society. It may seem minor to many, but I think it is symbolic of bigger things. And if the basis for our decision-making is change by intimidation, whether by forceful overpowering or emotional manipulation, I don't think it bodes well for a healthy and civil community. Our society has benefited from a Christian heritage that sees humility, respect, compassion and love of all--despite disagreement, even opposition--as virtues. And yes, it is sad that we Christians don't always live up to those standards either, sometimes avoiding healthy conflict, sometimes enabling bad behaviours. But the more we undermine Christianity, and encourage "victory by powerful assertion", the more we can expect real civility to also disappear. It won't be a healthy community. And it won't be a good side of history to be on.

May Jesus help us to live the way he showed us: "So Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" (Mark 10:42-45, NLT).

Is homophobia a genetic predisposition?

I was reading this Daily Telegraph article shared by someone on Facebook, and in the tangle of comments this question was one of those posed: "Were you raised to be homophobic or is it a genetic predisposition?" Whatever was intended, this question raises a significant issue. So what if homophobia is a genetic predisposition? One of the main arguments voiced in support of acceptance of homosexuality is the "fact" of genetic predisposition. How can you discriminate against the way someone was born?

But what if homophobia were also a genetic predisposition? What if, in the same way someone is "hard-wired" to be attracted to someone, another person is similarly predisposed to be repulsed by another? Is it legitimate to discriminate against their phobia? And if not, why not? On what basis do we decide what is right or wrong? Is it popular opinion? Or historical precedent? Is it majority current opinion, or majority historical opinion? Or what..?

Of course, this is a little facetious. And I'm not really wanting to comment on whether homosexuality or homophobia is a genetic predisposition. But in seriousness, I think it does highlight a key problem in the whole question. It is not so much the danger of the slippery slope, but more-so the danger of being floating adrift in a sea of moral uncertainty, blown about by every new wind, and perhaps with the only certainty being that one day we will sink beneath the waves completely.

As a Christian, I know that God has spoken into his world, to give us an anchor, and solid ground. While so many may opine that it is ridiculous and antiquated, even bigoted, to hold to the Bible as the Word of God, just because that is their opinion, it doesn't make them right.

What are you enslaved to, Mr Rudd?

I was appalled when I heard the brief response of our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to a Christian Pastor on ABC's Q&A last night. The snippet is on YouTube here:



I don't want to have disrespect for our Prime Minister, but if he claims to be a Christian I wish he would show more respect for God and his word, and at least try to interpret the Bible more sensibly and responsibly. His comments regarding what the Bible says about slavery and homosexuality are at best very naive...

Kevin Rudd's reasoning was sound if he wanted to say things that many people like to hear, and that are in step with a non-Christian way of looking at things. But I think it would be very difficult to intelligently show how his words could really be consistent with what Christ intended (or his apostle Paul etc).

Not sure how to put this briefly. The PM's logic seems to be this:

1. Slavery is not a bad condition in the Bible.
2. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding slavery is actually bad.
3. Homosexuality is a bad condition in the Bible.
4. Now we have advanced in Christian love to a changed view, understanding homosexuality is actually not a bad condition.
5. In both cases they follow the same pattern, and this is consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel.

Non sequitur, Mr Rudd. Here a just a few of the problems with this logic:

1. In OT and NT freedom from slavery is one of the main motifs used, saying that slavery is a bad condition
2. As above, fighting against human slavery is actually consistent with what is seen throughout the Bible, not a surprising advance or change.
3. Homosexuality is not portrayed as a good condition in the Bible.
4. Nothing anticipates a future acceptance of homosexuality as being consistent with Bible teaching
5. The Bible does consistently teach freedom from both slavery and homosexuality as consistent with the central trajectory of the Gospel, which is about rescue by Jesus to free us from bad conditions so that we can truly and freely love others.

I think if one was to read through all the references to both slavery and homosexuality in all the Bible, and properly consider what each one says in context, I can't see how Mr Rudd's logic could honestly be justified as consistent with the Bible.

If the PM was merely making a naturalistic case concluding that homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality etc, ignoring the Bible, then what he said has some internal consistency and logic. My problem with Mr Rudd is that he didn't do that. He tried to say that his view was consistent with Christian teaching, aka the Bible. It makes no sense to say something is Christian which ignores or rejects the Bible. The Bible defines Christianity. It is like saying something is Moslem which ignores or rejects the Quran. Or saying something is socialist which really espouses capitalism. Or like the "atheist" I once met at a uni Atheist Society, who later told me he was really a pantheist. Etc.

And by the way, the Bible doesn't give "natural condition" as an "out" for immorality etc. The Bible also talks about people who have a tendency to be abusive and hot-tempered (or we could pick any number of other things). But the Gospel is about the possibility of being freed from such "natural conditions", and being forgiven and empowered to make a clean start. It really is good news :D

Okay, that wasn't brief. Oops!