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.

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?

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 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?