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").

Does God magically intervene in the world?

If God *does* magically intervene, then I find a theological problem arises when some prayers go unanswered.

For example, consider the case of someone praying for healing that doesn't eventuate. As I believe in a God of unconditional love, I don't think God would ignore prayers, choose those to be answered on a whim, or punish people by refusing to answer prayers because of a lack of faith or
insufficient piety.

Perhaps, God could intervene but chooses not to, for reasons such as the personal growth of the individual who is sick or a greater good that arises from their illness? I do believe good things can arise from bad situations. A period of illness can motivate us to re-focus on what is really important in life. The death of a love one could motivate someone to dedicate their life to medicine - treating and curing many hundreds of others. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a manipulative God who is content to let one person suffer for the benefit of others. It doesn't sit well with the shepherd who leaves the 99 to rescue the 1. Furthermore, if God is all-powerful, then presumably God could devise a way for the greater good to be achieved and the individual to be healed.

This leaves me with the belief that God does answer prayer, but that prayer doesn't work through magical intervention. I believe prayer changes us, leading to our own action to bring about the change we are praying for. I am also open to a natural, biological mechanism in the universe, which sits grounded in God, that we don't understand yet but that we unconsciously tap into when we pray.

However it works, I believe in the value of prayer

In regard to the interventionist notions of prayer in the New Testament: more people at that time would have believed this to be the way prayer worked than they do now, including the authors of the biblical text. Thus, for example, the stories of the miracles of Jesus, are either a record of actual events where the healing was interpreted to be (but wasn't) magical/miraculous, or stories written to help convey the theology people were building up around the person of Jesus (but not actual events).

More on prayer

I see prayer as "re-visioning" the world. Through prayer we recognise
the problems with how things are and focus on how things should be.
Exactly how this works, i.e., leads to real, physical change in the
world, remains a mystery.

I think part of the answer is that "prayer changes us". By focussing
on how things should be, we develop motivation and inspiration to make
changes in the world towards realising the vision of how things should
be.

I think it certainly doesn't work by God magically or miraculously
intervening the world at our request.

Having made these two points, I am not bold enough to say prayer
only works by changing us in the way described above. People have
claim to pray for specific requests and later receive what they prayed
for. I am not comfortable with saying these instances are all
coincidences. However, I am comfortable in saying that if prayer does,
in some way, lead directly to changes in the world, that this
happens through a normal, physical/biological process - just one
beyond the current limits of our scientific knowledge.

(Extract from a post I sent to the insights-l mailing list).

Liberal fundamentalists

Rowland Croucher writes:

Frances McNabb probably never preaches, these days, without including what he's against, or without using terms like 'myth', which can be very confusing to layfolk. I call this aggressive anti-conservative approach 'liberal fundamentalism'.

I think "liberal fundamentalism" is unfair. In my experience, fundamentalists are those who seek to force their views on others. A classic example is tacitly or openly prolonging injustice against those they don't agree with in the hope the hardship will encourage them to change their minds. Denying people communion is another common tactic. I think the people Rowland mention's immediately following this quote are certainly strong advocates for a liberal perspective, and they do pursue this mainly through addressing the faults in the conservative perspective. I don't think this makes them fundamentalists.

On another note, it really is so much easier to describe what progressives don't believe rather than what they do believe. This is not because the beliefs are less well defined, it is because a core component of progressive belief is accepting that our current knowledge is limited. Thus any statement we make about God will certainly not capture the full nature of God and will be open to change as our knowledge of and relationship with God develops over time.

Thus, for example, we can confidently say God is not an old man inhabiting some physical place above the sky, but it is much more difficult to describe what God is.

What is a miracle?

For me, and I believe many others, in a religious context, miracle implies a "magical" or "supernatural" intervention in the world by God; a breaking of the laws of science. I think using the term "miracle" tends to confirm in the minds of people who don't see any value in Christianity their perspective that you have to believe in "magic" to be a Christian, thus driving them further away from a stronger connection with God.

It is, of course, OK to believe in miracles (i.e. magic, as per above). The problem is when people do not even know there is an alternative, equally valid perspective of God that doesn't require a belief in miracles. This flows on to problems in language and imagery; people talk and sing about things with no idea that some in their community find them nonsensical at best and offensive at worst.

It is my hope that, through education, people of faith will come to know and understand the alternatives, so they can make informed decisions about their faith.

What is the point of prayer?

My response to another question from the Coalface Network mailing list regarding the point of prayer and whether it is just a "cop out" allowing Christians to ask God to do something to change the world instead of getting out there and changing the world themselves...

The point of prayer is to "re-vision" the way we believe the world should be. It is a way of recognizing the problems with how things are and focusing on how things should be.

Of course how this "works" (i.e., actually leads to real change in the world) is largely a mystery. There is almost certainly an element of "prayer changing us", where the process of re-visioning instills hope and motivation for the community to actually physically work on the changes in the world. Our tradition and wisdom literature, however, suggests there is more to it than just this.

One thing I believe we know for sure is that it *doesn't* work through miraculous interference in the world by God at our request. I think the accusation of prayer being a "cop out" arises largely from a misunderstanding that God can and does perform miracles. Of course, for those who are looking at Christianity from an external view point, this misunderstanding is largely understandable as:

1) Many (most?) Christians, still hold a belief in a God who miraculously intervenes directly in the world. We urgently need a program of adult education within our churches to open people up to alternative ways of understanding God that don't require this belief.

2) The language and imagery we use in our liturgy, songs, prayers, and readings still talks about God in the way described above, even when people's beliefs have changed. While it is often suggested that the language is metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally, to the person looking in it is often not clear what is meant to be taken literally and what isn't. We desperately need new liturgy, songs, etc. that use imagery and language that capture alternative ways of
understanding God.

In talking to a person who is not part of the church, I think we need to be honest that we know a little about how it *doesn't* work and we have some ideas about how it *might* work. We *believe* it has immense value despite not understanding it completely. Then ask them to *experience* it as an adjunct (rather than an alternative) to getting out there and doing
something.

What is worship for?

A question was raised on the Coalface Network mailing list about "What is worship for? Is God insecure?". This is my response.

The purpose of worship is to re-connect with God as the Source of Life and Ground of our Being. It is about remembering who God is and what God's purpose for our lives is. It is about re-focusing: shifting our centre of attention back to what really matters. It is about screening
out the noises and voices in our society that ceaselessly demand our attention.

It is about doing this in *community*: learning from each other, supporting each other, knowing there a people who will journey with us to discover God.

It differs from bible study or mission/justice activities, although it is not separate from them. Worship is about the mystery: ritual, liturgy, prayer, meditation, singing, music, candles. Things that may not make sense ("why bother praying as we know God does not miraculously intervene in the world") nor directly bring about the realm of God ("how does lighting candles and incense help the poor and disadvantaged") but which we somehow know or feel through experience to be critically important in aligning ourselves with God.

I think to get it "right" you have to have:

* the head (a theology informed by the latest science and philosophy, expressed in relevant language and imagery)
* the heart (rituals and practices to re-connect us to God and "filter out" the noise)
* the hands (social justice and caring actions to change the world and bring about God's realm)

Unfortunately, it is hard to find all three together.

What is a post-modern Christian?

I am occupied at the moment with trying to understand what it means to be a post-modern Christian. This is how I see things at present:

* "Modern" Christians are those who believe there is a truth and I/they/it know it. Modern Christians come in at least two flavours: liberals and conservatives/evangelicals. The former believe that science, logic, and reasoning lead to truth. Thus theology needs to be refined on the basis of these and anything that does not agree with these is to be discarded. Conservatives/evangelicals believe the bible contains the truth and so everything, including science, must be interpreted in the context of the bible.

* "Postmodern" Christians are those who believe there is no truth or, alternatively, that truth is relative. The experiences and history of an individual define what is true for that individual. What is true for one person may not be true for another.

The "postmodern" approach appears to be in the ascendancy at the moment. The modern approach is identified as the root cause of the current division in the church. Each "faction" has its own source of truth, leading to different conclusions, bitter debates, and struggle for dominance. The postmodern approach appears to solve these debates by refusing to accept the existence of truth. Each person can believe their own thing. Thus we can be united in our goal of following Christ, regardless of the fact we have different understandings about what "following Christ" means.

The problem for me is: I don't see how a group of post-modern Christians, with diverse perspectives, can ever make a communal decision? Individual decisions are OK. Each person can choose their own way. While others may not like the decision, because it doesn't affect them, they can let it go. However, once the decision becomes communal, that is, the decision will affect all people in the group, there will be different suggested courses of action, based on each person's perspective. The lack of any objective truth, then makes it impossible to choose between the options as each is equally valid.

I use the term "progressive" to describe my own approach to Christianity. I think the "liberal modern" approach is good because (philosophical discussions about the scientific method aside) science, logic, and reason give us a solid base. I think Christianity must be informed by these. However, since God is outside the realm of science, that is, God cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method, there is clearly room for "mystery" or "unknown" in our faith. So individual experience, story, and myth must also be considered.

In decision making, this view allows decisions to be made, as subjective experiences can be "weighted" by human knowledge, to suggest the better course of action. The inclusion of different experiences prevents a blind acceptance of what we "know" and keeps us aware of the need to re-evaluate as knowledge grows and experience change.

At the end of this, I now wonder whether "progressives" are just postmodern liberals?