Motivation

(I am writing this post to my Christian brothers and sisters.  Unless you know Jesus, and follow him as saviour and Lord, then much of what I say here will be somewhat meaningless.  If you do follow him, then I think that you're in the same position as me - bound by our relationship with Jesus to follow his way, speak his truth and to obey his commands.
At the same time, I hope that non-Christian readers will understand my motivation in opposing same-sex marriage.  I am not a hate-filled bigot.  I am simply not content to leave one of God's creatures in a snare if anything I say or write can help that.)

The gay marriage debate comes over as fundamentally selfish. I'm not talking primarily about proponents, but about many opponents of gay marriage, often professing Christians.  I don't know if this facebook commenter is a Christian (probably not, given the way he talks about "you" and "your"), but this is the tenor of a lot of the discussion on the topic:

... if you are an orthodox christian with problems about Gay marriage follow your own Dam book and turn the other cheek, it is not going to affect you or your place "in God's Kingdom". Or a decidedly more Australian way to put it "Take a teaspoon of cement and harden the F$%k up!"

In other words: "It's not going to affect you", so shut up about it all.


And often our response is "yes it will affect us, and this is how...".  It is a self-centred response.


But let's leave that to one side for now and assume that an amendment permitting same-sex marriages would not affect anyone except those people entering into a same-sex marriage.  What then?  Would we all hold our peace and get on with our (self-centred) lives?

Why we can't just turn the other cheek

The phrase that the commenter refered to comes from Jesus' teaching about the right response when someone wrongs you in Matthew 5:38-48.  Jesus' refers to the Old Testament rules about punishment and retribution ("an eye for an eye"), which was always a limiting rule - any punishment or retaliation must not exceed the measure of the original wrong.  Jesus then turns it on its head, saying that we should prefer to suffer double wrong than to seek any measure of retribution.  He goes on to command his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them.

So immediately we can see two things:

1. Jesus' words about turning the other cheek apply when we are wronged.  I cannot see how it has any application to the content of the marriage debate in Australia. (Although there may be plenty of opportunity to practice this teaching in responding to personal attacks during the debate!)   The debate itself about setting future public policy.  
2. Jesus' words about loving our enemies still have general application.  (At least, I assume they do - I consider those opposed to me in the debate as opponents rather than enemies, but I see no reason that the principle would be any different).  What does it mean to "love my enemies" in the context of the marriage debate?

The common understanding of being loving towards others (at least as that applies in the context of the marriage debate) is of leaving the other in peace to live life by his own lights, or according to his own choices.  It is most usually expressed in secular debate by the word "tolerance".  But tolerance falls very far short of love.  One can only tolerate something or someone of whom one doesn't approve.  You might tolerate someone else's whiny, smelly, grasping and selfish toddler; you don't tolerate your own - you love her.  So you take care to correct the whiny, selfish behaviour.  You stoop to the indignity of changing the dirty nappy and cleaning up your child.  Tolerance, or leaving someone in peace, does not show love - it shows indifference.

So I do not show love to my opponent in the marriage debate by leaving them alone, by tolerating their argument.  How do I show love in this context?  And why?

What is love?

I've already claimed that love is not the same as tolerance.  So what is love?


Biblically, love is most vividly in God's actions, as Father and Son, to restore the rebellious humanity to a relationship with him.  We are told in the bible that God created all things good (Genesis 1 and 2), but that humanity rebelled against its creator, choosing instead to follow its own lights and to try to become like God (Genesis 3 onwards!).  Humans wilfully obscured their knowledge of God.  They deserved to be rejected by God, and left to dwindle and die, cut off from the source of life, goodness and joy.


But God pursued his creation, refusing to see them left in the snare of their conceit and pride.  He chose a specific people group in the middle east (the Israelites, descended from Abraham: Genesis 12), and promised that from these people, a blessing for all the world would come. Notwithstanding that privileged relationship, Israel continued to rebel against God.


Ultimately, God himself came to earth: Jesus Christ.  He lived amongst the people he created, taught amongst them, healed them, drove out demons, and fed them.  Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience and submission to God's word - that life that all humanity should have lived.  


But the people still rejected God, and put Jesus to death in a painful, humiliating fashion reserved only for the worst of criminals.  Jesus willingly accepted this death, as the means of restoring his people to God.  By this self-sacrifice, Jesus made his perfect record of obedience to anyone that would cast their lot in with him.  He took on himself the rejection and death that our rebellion deserved.  It was a place swap, like Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton in Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, only infinitely greater.


And then the seal on the whole arrangement: God raised Jesus from death.  Those who have (and continue to) cast their lot in with him are beyond the clutches of rebellion (sin) and its consequences (death), and enjoy a restored relationship with God.  In fact we are called children of God!  This is a completely free gift - not earned at all by its recipients (us), and in fact entirely beyond our capacity to earn.


So this is love: God's action in laying down his own honour, glory, comfort, and life, for the sake of his creatures who deserve the reverse.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Sadly there are many who refuse the gift, and prefer instead the lesser status of a petty King in their own life.  Many do so, blinded by things or ideas that continue to promise: this will make you happy, will give you control, will give you security, will give you comfort, will let you regulate your own life by your own lights, will make you like a little god in your own world.

• Some people are caught by wealth, spending their lives pursuing more things, more money, more financial security.
• Some are caught by a desire for novelty - travel, food, leisure activities.  Always pursuing the next thing that will distract from the reality of life.
• Some are caught by addictions - drugs, alcohol etc.
• Some are caught by sex - promiscuity, adultery, homosexual behaviour.

The bible, in multiple passages, warns that these are all snares that can and do trap people, distracting them from God and causing them to reject the free gift of a friendship with God through trusting Jesus.  As such, the snares are deadly - unless a person is freed from such a snare, the result is alienation from God and, ultimately, death.  Or, to use another metaphor, they are all poisonous fruit of the same poisoned tree.  That tree is the rebellion against God that is a deep-seated part of human nature; the fruit are the various "sins" that are spoken of.  Christians have a responsibility to warn people of these dangers - to do otherwise is neglectful and unloving.


So the link with the same-sex marriage debate is this: I believe that all expressions of sexual conduct outside of biblically defined marriage are forms of this trap that leads to death.  Society generally does not accept this, and is permissive of many different sexual arrangements. But in so doing, society contributes to the strength of the trap by rendering it less visible.  That is so, because a person will not seek an escape until she perceives a danger.  In the same-sex marriage context, a societal sanction of homosexual unions by equating them with marriage removes one of the warning signs that shows it to be a snare, drawing a person away from God.  


So one of the roles of the church, of the Christian, is to point out the danger, and to resist the gently lullaby by which society tranquilises those who are ensnared.  Specifically, this means arguing against same-sex marriage, and constantly pointing to the need for Jesus.

Some objections

Non-christian, heterosexual marriages.  

One facebook commenter wrote:

If gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage to Christians as it is a "Christian Tradition" then by the same token so must Hindi, Muslim, Taoist unions must be similarly abhorrent to your god. Marriage is a tradition that predates Christianity (if you believe in Science) and to claim ownership over what is considered by most (these days) as a legally binding union (not an anthropomorphic bound union) seems unfair.

I think this objection misunderstands both the Christian claims about marriage, and the Christian motivation for opposing gay marriage.

1. Christianity claims that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning of humanity's existence as being a union between one man and one woman, until ended by death, to the exclusion of all others.  It was a gift given to all of humanity, not just to the Christian community.  It was a gift given before the Christian church began, and before Jesus walked the earth.  As such, marriages contracted in other societies and religious traditions are still valid marriages, as they adhere to the "creation ordinance".  Gay marriage simply doesn't.  As Christians believe that marriage was created by God, they believe that humanity is not free to redefine it.
2. Some of the Christian discussion about gay marriage is about the risk it poses of devaluing marriage as an institution.  I note that some non-Christian opponents to same-sex marriage make a similar point.  It may well be the case (although I've assume not for the purpose of this blog post only!).  My point is that, whether it does or not, Christians will continue to oppose it - not because it's abhorrent to God and he needs the caped crusaders to come in a fight on his side.  We will oppose it because of the danger it poses to those caught in the trap of the idolisation of sex.  We oppose it, therefore, for the same reason that we oppose all rebellion against God - out of love and concern for the rebels.

The bible might be true for you, but not for me

Throughout this post, I have referred often (albeit generally) to the bible, and it should be clear that I accord it a very high authority.  I am aware that most people do not, and so much of my argument rests on assumptions that will be rejected.  But my purpose is not to convince you of the strength of my argument, but to show that my motivation for opposing same-sex marriage is not hatred, but love.  My purpose is to show that, given my assumptions and the evidence I accept as trustworthy, my claim is supportable by reason.  You might disagree with my actions, my words and my conclusions, but please have the decency and honesty to accept that I act out of love, not hatred or fear.

It is unloving to force your morality on me - Jesus never did that

I agree.  Jesus did not force other people to live moral lives.  Jesus did not exercise political power.  But Jesus never drew back from telling the truth.  Having saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning, he told her to "go, and sin no more".  During his trial, when Jesus was struck by one of the guards, he did not retaliate (ie, he turned the other cheek), but he also challenged the man: 

"If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong.  But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

So in arguing for the traditional description of marriage, I am following Jesus' example in telling the truth, even where that is unpopular.


Am I forcing morality on someone?  No.  I see a danger.  I warn of consequences.  I do what I can to keep the cultural undergrowth from obscuring the snare.  The freedom of others to choose their actions is intact.


And if the laws change?  Well, as I argued here, the nature of our democracy is such that all citizens have a right and obligation to argue their viewpoints, and that our institutions are strongest when that occurs.  Participation in those democratic processes is not force.

Conclusion (finally)

This has been a long post.  I suspect that it will have persuaded no-one to change their opinion on same-sex marriage.  But I do hope that those of us who follow Jesus can see the importance of standing up for our beliefs - not for our own benefit, or to defend God's honour or our social way of life, but out of love and concern for those who are perishing.

And I hope that those who disagree with me might nonetheless be able to see that, from within my own worldview, I am acting out of love, not hate.

Love your neighbour as yourself

I was reading this post on the blog Stuff Christians Like the other day.

(For those who have stayed with me and not been distracted by Jon's great blog - thank you both.)  

Image: 'The Good Samaritan' by Chinese artist
Dr He Qi as found at He Qi Gallery. 

Anyway, the gist of the thing is that Christians like to pride themselves on being loving, especially to non-Christians.  It's kinda our thing.  We all know bits of 1 Corinthians 13 (Love is patient, love is kind, love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, - or something like that).  We remember three of the four characters in the parable of the good samaritan (there were the levis, the guy who got robbed, the samaritan and the ... other unhelpful bloke).  And we're really good at the "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another."  Someone even wrote a song.

Problem is, as Jon pointed out on his blog, most of our love and service is directed inwards toward other Christians.  In our enthusiasm for the Great Commission, we oftentimes forget the Great Commandment.  Don't get me wrong, we should be loving other Christians (and let's face it, who would want to join the church if we didn't?), but when I look searchingly at my own behaviour, I see a worrying pattern - I spend very little of my time with non-Christians, and almost no social time with non-Christians.

We know that love is not primarily a feeling (like I discussed here), but rather an intentional action to work for the good of another.  If that is true, then one implication is the need to spend time with that other person.  If I don't, how can I be acting for their good?  Examine yourself - am I all alone here in my insulated personal Christendom, or are you nodding along?

It's about here that I'm meant to start making a whole lot of resolutions about inviting non-Christian co-workers, neighbours and school parents to barbecues - in fact I did in my head, before another thought occurred to me:

How will my children learn to love their non-Christian neighbour unless they see me doing it? 

My children get lots of time with their non-Christian friends - they go to a State primary school.  But how will they learn to be a Christian person in a non-Christian setting, rather than a chameleon that can adapt rapidly between church and school circles?

First and foremost, my trust is in God, that through greater knowledge of his Son, and through the gift of the Holy Spirit, my children will learn to look beyond themselves, their family and their church to the needs of the world.  I know that these lessons will not be downloaded Matrix-style to their minds, but that God will use people (primarily me and my wife!) as instruments to teach them.

So here are the thoughts that occurred to me - perhaps you have other ideas that you could contribute in the comments:

Incidental ideas:

• We've started praying each night and (when we have time) each morning, that the Holy Spirit would be with the children through the day, and that they would be good representatives of Jesus;
• We try to open our home to their friends for play dates, and then be present while the kids are eating and playing together;
• Do you do school pick up? Make time to chat to other kids and parents, or to keep kids company whose parents are late or need to meet with teachers;
• Volunteer in your child's classroom, music group, sports team, dance class, and look for opportunities to serve and to explain to your children why you do it;
• I really do need to invite the families of their friends over for a meal!

More structured ideas:

• For older kids, could they get involved in a family or church activity that is run for the benefit of others? Like landscaping the school, or shopping for a housebound neighbour, or inviting the migrant family for a meal and regular English conversation, or volunteering with City Mission, Salvos or Anglicare?
• Pick a cause - national or international - that demonstrates Christian love, and encourage the kids to learn about it and think how to support it.  It might be something like Samaritan's Purse "Operation Christmas Child", or sponsoring a child overseas, or supporting the work of the Leprosy Mission.

"Did they just want to get unmarried to each other?"

We'd been talking about people we knew in our last town when my 5-year-old came out with this question.  The couple had separated and were heading for a divorce.  My kids were trying to understand why.  Tricky topic, but a great teachable moment. What is love?  Why do people stop loving each other?

from 1 John 3

I had to explain that sometimes I don't feel like I love them - feelings come and go.  But even when I don't feel loving, I try to do things that show love for them, like making breakfast, like helping them get ready for school, like getting up to them in the night if they have a bad dream.  I usually don't feel like doing any of this, but I do it because I love them.  In fact, it is in doing these things that I am loving them.


Love, first and foremost, is a verb - it is what we do.  We see this in the quote from John's first letter.  What is love (noun)?  We know what it is by Jesus' action in laying down his life.  Not Jesus' feelings towards us; not some tangible thing; not some intangible concept; not even Jesus' passive acceptance of fate; but his active, chosen deed. 

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

John 10:17-18

Our society misunderstands love.  We are fed the lie that love is how we feel, and that if we feel love, our highest duty and highest good is to act on it.  Conversely, we're told that when we stop feeling love, we need to move on.  As if all our morality hangs on how we feel in the moment.  We get this message in countless novels, movies and tv sitcoms.  We see this message implicit in the celebrity news, in magazines and on lifestyle programs.  


I even heard of a wedding where the couple, writing their own vows, promised commitment to each other for "as long as love shall last".  I suspect that many couples have this rider in mind, even if they don't say so out loud: "I'll be committed to you forever, until I don't feel like it any more."  How romantic.


Real love is active.  It is often hard work.  It is gritty and determined.  It is persistent.  It exists regardless of feelings, and sometimes despite them.

My eldest daughter got it pretty quickly: love is not how you feel, but what you do. 



Who has the strength for such love?  One man only, and he is not me.  Only Jesus has proven equal to such a high ideal.  It is only in Jesus' strength that I can follow Jesus' loving example.

icky jobs

I'm talking to the kids at St Aidan's this Sunday about Jesus washing the disciples feet (John 13:1-17). What fun can't you have telling a story to a bunch of 5-9 year olds about an insanely disgusting cleanup job.


It feels like I've known the story from my mother's womb - just before the last supper, Jesus knows he's on the way to the cross, he strips off and washes the road grime, mud and animal droppings off his disciples' sweaty, stinky feet. Peter protests; he's overruled. Jesus tells his disciples to mimic his humble actions.  


I've always seen it as an example Jesus set us to follow, so my thinking has usually been - "knowing this story, what do I need to do to copy Jesus' example? How should I be serving others?"


But this time, I was struck by something new: 

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” 

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

John 13:6-8

Jesus answer to Peter doesn't make sense if he is just setting an example to follow.  Jesus can hardly be saying: "Come on Simon, I need to make a point here!  Just cooperate."  By the time he'd got to Peter, he'd already washed enough feet to make his point.


No, Jesus' act was more than an example to follow (although it is that too).  Jesus was acting out a parable. This event is firstly about what Jesus does for me and you, and then secondly about what we do in response to and imitation of him.


He lowered himself to the meanest level, to clean his followers' feet, ready for the great supper that was prepared for them.


And the following day, he suffered an even greater humiliation to carry out an even greater cleansing, to prepare an even greater number of followers for an even greater banquet!


Are you one of them?

Husbands, love your wives...

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Ephesians 5:25 

One of the best legacies that my Dad left me was his example of how he loved my Mum.  It wasn't that he was showy and romantic (at least, not that we saw).  It was that his love was a bedrock for their relationship, and consequently for our family.  He anticipated her needs and wants.  He brought her tea in bed in the morning.  He chipped in with the housework and cooking.  He didn't work all-hours, came home for dinners, spent weekends with us.  He remembered important dates, and celebrated them appropriately.  He remembered unimportant details (often concerning us kids), and so helped carry Mum's burdens.  He always respected her, always spoke kindly and lovingly to her, never bad-mouthed her or her family, and never, ever hit her.


I always felt safe at home (even when I didn't like some of the rules!), and I never felt the least possibility that our home life would change before I left to make a home of my own.  The grace of God and the good example of my Dad was so solid that I had trouble understanding some of the family struggles of my classmates.


My first full-time job as a lawyer was a real shock to me.  As a Legal Aid lawyer, I was meeting people whose families were built on quicksand, not bedrock.  Would Dad come home tonight?  Would there be money left after the pub and the pokies?  Would he be quiet, or drunk and violent?  Or else the questions would be of a different kind: Why did he leave?  Did I do something to drive him away?  Who was he anyway?


As I grow older, and see more of the world (and more of my community), I am incredibly grateful to my Dad.  I value his example of one man giving himself completely for one woman - and so building a safe place for his family.

more than words ...

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.  1 John 3:18

Did you see Apollo 13?  If so, you will remember that gripping 4+ minutes towards the end.  After days (was it only days) of things going consistently wrong in space, the 3-man team aboard are re-entering the atmosphere.  Houston knows that they will lose contact with the ship for the 3 minutes it takes to get from stratosphere to splash-down.  Mission control is tense, but not panicked.  But then the 3 minutes pass, and there is still no contact.


In my memory, the film makers slow the pace of the movie to real-life speed.  4 minutes is such a long time.  


"Apollo 13, do you copy?"
Silence.
"Apollo 13?"
Silence.


Radio crackle.  Heartbeats.


And then Tom Hanks' voice: "Houston? ..."


I'm sure that at every screening, every audience member unclenched his fists, sat back in her seat, breathed out long and slow.


The message was being broadcast - it wasn't being received.

Which is a long-winded introduction to the scene at the Oakley house this evening, in which Number Two bounded up to my lovely wife Sally with her hands peaked on top of her head.  "Goodnight Mummy.  That means 'I love you' in Squiffy language" she says.


After the "aww"-moment passed, I started thinking.  We tell our children often enough that we love them - we're broadcasting the message - but are we being received?  


My Eldest understands love through gifts.  I first realised this when she was raging about someone touching "her things".  Aha!  Now some of her other behaviour makes sense!  She loves to give little presents to me and Sally.  She's always at me to buy Sally flowers (I really should listen to her more.)  She always sneaks little things she's been given to school to show her friends.  


Suddenly a lot of the fights between her and Number Two made more sense.  Suddenly I wondered: has she been on a starvation diet for these last few years?  Not receiving the message of love I've been broadcasting?  As she grows she'll see my love for her in the day-to-day things, but for now, I'm trying to speak her language.  I'm praying that, in recent months, that message has been getting through.


And Number Two?  I think she's a cuddler, which is quite alright by me.


I found Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages a really helpful book to understand that Sally expresses and receives love differently from me.  He's also written versions specifically for kids and teenagers.