A majority of Christians support marriage equality

In his op-ed piece in today's herald, Mike Carlton states:

If Christians don't like the idea of homosexuals getting hitched, then fine, but why should they force their prejudice upon the rest of us?

In doing so, he makes the mistake that seems all to common in media circles: assuming all Christians think and believe the same thing. Such a generalization might be understandable when used to paint a broad brush perspective, in limited newspaper column space, overlooking some minority positions along the way. However, the fact of the matter is, as shown in a recent Galaxy poll:

A majority of Christians support marriage equality.

You wouldn't know it from how it is reported in the media, but a majority of Christians support gay marriage. Yes, some Christians do oppose gay marriage, but the vocal, extreme conservative voices of the Australian Christian Lobby and some high profile church leaders do not actually reflect the majority view.

The crux of the Christian faith is to love other people. I don't think it is possible to do that while denying the opportunity of marriage to couples engaged in a mutual, committed, adult relationship just because the individuals happen to be of the same gender.

What did Jesus actually say?

Matt Stone reflects on different approaches to biblical literalism in a recent post on Glocal Christianity. He favours an approach of giving greater weight to the teaching of Jesus when examining statements in different parts of the bible that contradict each other.

I share his perspective of the importance of the teaching of Jesus. However, this brings to mind another challenge, namely: what did Jesus actually say? The record we have in the bible is limited and incomplete. There are no doubt things Jesus said that were not recorded. Furthermore, the things that were recorded are made up of:

• legitimate sayings of Jesus
• words that correctly capture the teaching of Jesus, but were not actual quotes
• words where someone has honestly tried to capture the teaching of Jesus, but missed the mark
• words where someone has deliberately created, changed, or manipulated the teaching of Jesus to reinforce their own interests e.g. relgious institutional power

The difficulty in discerning which words are which, or the inclusion of the last group, does not diminish the value of the biblical text. It just highlights the importance of individual and communal study and reflection.

I find it helpful to consider the biblical text as a whole and look at the broad, underlying themes: love, justice, compassion, peace, etc. Then individual pieces of text can be interpreted in the context of these themes. An exhortation from Jesus to "love your enemies" fits well: so it is probably legitimate or at least a true reflection of Jesus' actual teaching. A command from God in the Old Testament to commit genocide doesn't fit: so this is likely, at best, to be a horrendous misunderstanding of will of God by those who recorded it.

In doing this, it is important to give some serious, objective thought to the passages, both individually, and in respectful, community discussion, particularly with others who see things differently. This helps guard against interpreting the way of God purely to suit ourselves. The recorded actions of Israel in Canaan show this is all too easy to do.

The Problem of Evil

On the topic of the Problem of Evil on the CafeChurch forum, I wrote:

I think part of the problem arises from a particular way of understanding God. In "The Heart of Christianity", Borg talks about two concepts of God: supernatural theism and panentheism. The former involves thinking of God as a person-like being. God is "in heaven" or "out there". Thus, to act in the world God must intervene in the form of miracles, wonders, supernatural events, etc. Thelogically, it then becomes difficult to rationalise an all-loving and all-powerful God who sometimes intervenes but other times doesn't.


Panenthesism, does away with the notion of God as a being. Instead, God is a "Spirit" and everything is grounded in God. Thus God is not "out there" but around and within us. Thus, there is no "intervention", only everything taking place in God with the intention of God to bring everything into harmony with God.

Why did Jesus die?

Here is a post I made on the Cafe and Kaos Church blog. You can follow the subsequent discussion in the CafeChurch Forum.

With Lent (the forty days before Easter, not including Sundays) getting under way yesterday, it seems like a timely question: why did Jesus die?

Some would say: "Jesus died so that we can be forgiven". I don't think so.

What sort of God would require, or even worse - arrange, the death of their own child as a pre-requisite for offering forgiveness? I reckon God always forgives - always has, always will. Before we even realize something is wrong, God forgives.

I think this is part of the good news that Jesus understood and tried to teach. In doing so, he upset the religious conservatives of his day, who thought God required endless bloody sacrifices in order to forgive. In order to deal with the threat Jesus posed, they had him executed.

I think Jesus did not die so that we can be forgiven but because we are forgiven.

Creeds and songs

Further to my post on creeds, the difficulty I find with creeds persists with worship music, where the vast majority of popular choices (hymns or contemporary) contain lyrics reflecting a single, particular approach to God I cannot affirm.

Maybe it is just me? I know others can "let go" and recite creeds and sing songs whose content they don't agree with because the "why" (being together, connecting with our past, feeling the rhythm) is sufficient for them. But, for me, this feels like leaving my brain at the door. Is it impossible to worship with both "head" and "heart" at the same time?

A minimal creed

Rowland Croucher writes:

In the 1980s I wrote a little book – Recent Trends Among Evangelicals [1] – and tried to argue for a 'minimal creed'. Here's mine (at present): 1. One God: Father, Son, Spirit; 2. Jesus is my Lord; 3. The teachings and example of Jesus are authoritative for faith and conduct; 4. Love for, acceptance of and full fellowship with all who thus confess their allegiance to Jesus Christ; 5. Our calling to minister in the world as Jesus did – in terms of justice, compassion and evangelism.

I am uncomfortable with creeds. I know how awkward it feels when the person up the front (often following Uniting in Worship liturgy) says "Let's together affirm our faith" and you stand in silence while everyone else recites the Apostle's or Nicene Creed. For a while, I quietly recited it as a nod to "what Christians used to believe": the common starting point from where our theology has developed. Then as a "sacramental" practice where the words are largely irrelevant and it is the continuity of this practice through history which is important. However, I eventually decided reciting the Creeds was reinforcing a mindless acceptance of the literal truth of the statements. So I stopped.

Despite this, I still find the concept of succinctly summarizing my faith fascinating. And I like the idea of a set of statements to bring people together and unite people in common mission and vision. Hence,
I like the idea of "minimal creed". Yet I am not sure I could even say the one Rowland prepared. (I note here that Rowland said it was "mine (at present)" indicating that it is not necessarily for anyone else, like me, nor fixed for all time.) For example, I like the concept of 1. but would prefer the phrase "One God: Creator, Christ, Spirit" to reflect my understanding that God is neither male nor female. Similarly 2., for me, would be "Jesus is my way to God", dispensing with the gender and imperial overtones of "Lord". 3 is OK, but, in a communal context, I worry it whitewashes the issue of what, from the record we have, is legitimate "teaching and example of Jesus" and what is later embellishment. 4 and 5 seem fine to me.

I raise this not to challenge Rowland's creed, but simply to reflect on the diversity that was the focus of the earlier part of his post. I am sure others will find things in my choice of words that don't reflect their understanding. With such a diverse range of beliefs, is a creed useful? Furthermore, is a creed *possible*? If so, what would it contain: what are the set of words "everyone" could stand up and
honestly and loudly proclaim?

Faith healing

Godless Gross asks some questions about faith healing in the context of various stories of children dying as a result of their parents choosing to pray for healing rather than obtaining professional medical help. These stories are tragic and, indeed, criminal. However, as Gross himself notes, they are "examples of destructive fundamentalism" rather than the norm of Christian belief.

Nonetheless, it is important we act to prevent similar future tragedies. Society must continue to "enforce the law with rigour". The church must do a better job at educating its members that belief in magical (or miraculous) intervention is not a pre-requisite for faith.

Interestingly, this misunderstanding appears to extend deeply into the atheist community. Gross says "Jesus was a faith healer and this was one of the bases of his claims to divinity."

No. The people who wrote this part of the bible said Jesus performed miraculous healings. Which doesn't mean Jesus actually did perform miraculous healings. Jesus probably did heal people, but in the normal, "medical" sense, and sometimes in the psychosomatic sense. To your average person of the day, with no knowledge of science, this would be a miracle. And the amount, nature, and extent of those miracles would be amplified by rumour.

If only Christians and atheists alike could move past the literal interpretation to the metaphorical one. Jesus is a faith healer to the extent that the way and philosophy of life ("faith") taught by Jesus (i.e., love, compassion, tolerance, social justice, peace, etc.) leads to wholeness of body, mind, and spirit ("healing").