Politics, Christians and Homosexuality
August 16th, 2007
OK, I’m angry. And what’s more, I’m likely to make you angry. Possibly for the same reason as me. Possibly because you vigorously disagree with what I say. Either way. But here’s the back story:
After Scott and Christina kindly posted a link through to the video of the Australian Christian Lobby’s big politician thing “Make It Count”, where there were a whole bunch of church leaders at the National Press Club in Canberra, as well as being simulcast all over the country via online streaming. It was a pretty big deal and we had both Howard and Rudd addressing the issues they saw as affecting and being particularly relevant to christians. Thousands of people across Australia were watching, and I certainly saw a lot of value in hearing what the two leaders had to say.
And both leaders said a number of things that were of value. However, for some reason, there was only one thing that the crowd felt was deserving of spontaneous applause. It wasn’t a humanitarian measure that prompted spontaneous applause, nor was it mentions of conscience votes on stem cells, RU486, or comments on refugees. Instead, this room full of christian leaders believed that the only moment most worthy of spontaneous applause was the moment when John Howard mentioned his involvement in the amendments to the marriage act to enshrine in law the standard of marriage being between “one man and one woman”.
I was already fairly worked up after hearing that, but I was pushed just a little further while I was listening to the Kevin Rudd, question answer part and heard the National President of the Australian Family Association ask Kevin Rudd for an assurance that he would not support an extension of “de-facto” relationship status to include homosexual relationships.
I was pretty ticked off. For starters, here’s how I’d see the issue of marriage in relation to homosexual relationships. For my thinking, there are two parts to what happens in a marriage: there’s a change in legal status (complete with a bunch of legal rights, particularly in the event of death of a spouse), and there is a spiritual dimension to marriage: the spiritual unification of two people. Now I strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I also strongly believe that churches should not be holding weddings between homosexual couples. But I fail to understand why a country who has on the whole accepted that people are in homosexual relationships, is not willing to grant the legal dimension of marriage to couples wanting to commit to one another for life.
OK, so that’s my position. But I understand that for some people (including probably the majority of christians), the notion of compromising the institution of marriage, even if only in a “legal” sense is an unacceptable position. I’d like to hear why, but I want to make another point first.
De-facto relationships. To use the old-fashioned term: “living in sin”. At the moment in Australian law, couples in a de-facto relationship are given more “rights” (in the same sense as we talk about legal rights in marriage) than any form of homosexual relationships. So the part I cannot understand is why we’re so determined to ostracise homosexual couples to the point that we’re not even willing to give them the same status as couples whose only real commitment to one another is that they are living together. It defies belief. Both situations are against the teachings of Christianity. So why is the Australian Family Association so frightened of “compromising the family” in this way?
August 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
You brave soul Geoff. Well done for speaking your mind and I look forward to the comments that come forth. I also enjoy the google adds that this post has brought up. ‘are people born gay’ etc etc.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Well, Geoff, perhaps my comments should be a new post, but I got riled by a different thing.
I actually went to watch the thing live at a church. The thing that got me agitated was Howard’s use of the parable of the “talents” as an underpinning for free-enterprise and making money. NO, NO NO! That parable is not about free-enterprise. It’s a parable about identifying with God, doing what he commissions us to do.
The other observation I have is that it is nigh on impossible for a politician to say sorry for something, or to say “I was wrong”, or to say “we could have done much better”. Maybe that’s because the system is too adversarial.
Now as for the point of Geoff’s post. I am not surprised that some of the leaders applauded. Many have the sense that they are the guardians of social moral values. They struggle with the impact that a very very small minority of people have in terms social acceptance and impact on moral values. What I find intriguing is that homosexual people should be looking to embrace a custom (marriage) that is grounded in a Judeo-Christian ethic when they in general pursue their intimate relationships outside of that ethic.
I think the desire not to give legal rights to gay couples is position of defence against moral slippage. Will it work? Perhaps, perhaps not. Once something is made legal the line between whether it is moral or not becomes much more fuzzy. As Christians we will hopefully focus first and foremost on the good the God calls us to rather than a set of rules. It is good and physically natural for us humans to have male-female intimate relationships.
I believe Christian ethicists would argue that Christian moral values contribute to a good social fabric. To allow legality for homosexual relationships it could be argued is damaging for society since it legitimizes sub-optimal relationships. By the same token de-facto relationships are sub-optimal too.
I will end by saying that our perpetual challenge is to love and care for people whatever their sin is. All sin separates us from the good that God calls us to and gave his son to restore us to.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Hear hear Geoff.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I knew someone would have some sort of objection to Howard using the parable of the talents. You’d think he would have realised that Christians create enough debate within the ranks about the meaning of scripture, without a novice weighing in with his own interpretations. I think the guy realised that he was in over his head. He looked really really nervous on the video before the speech and concerned while he was delivering it.
As for your post Geoff -
I think de facto relationships have some form of legal status because I don’t think there is a heck of a lot that the law can do to stop them. So it becomes a question of management rather than endorsement, given that those family structures are going to exist regardless of how the church feels about them. Of course, you could say the same thing about homosexual couples. The only difference being, that because it’s biologically impossible for both people to be the parents of the same child, the only avenue through which they could be recognised as such, is the legal one. I think this is what threatens Christian leaders the most. I don’t envisage them spending anywhere near as much energy debating whether or not same-sex couples should be treated the same as married couples for tax purposes, or where next-of-kin medical decisions are concerned. Those things don’t appreciably alter the structure of Australian families or the upbringing of Australian children.
I see what you’re saying Geoff, in terms of the apparent futility in trying to legally enforce “Christian behaviours” on a society. I agree with you up to that point. There is no sense in trying to legislate against things that people are going to do, if your expectation is that the letter of the law will actually change anything. At the same time, if we are going to generalise the legal definitions around issues like marriage and leave it up to the punters to determine the moral expression, then I think we do need to carefully consider whether we are also handing over legal permission for something that people otherwise wouldn’t have had the ability to do. Those are the issues that deserve scrutiny.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Heya Geoff!
Didn’t realise you hadn’t heard these people in action in this way before. Don’t know if I’ve bitched to you personally about it… but this is why the ACL get absolutely no support from me… in fact personally I think they have their hand in their pants.
I had the opportunity just before the last election to hear Jim Wallace speak, and he constantly used metaphor about Gays being “the enemy” in some kind of mortal battle. Because he’s apparently some big important political figure, the church I was attending couldnt do enough to bend over for him. Do we want these people to be the face of christianity? Are any of us angry enough to start a different christian lobby group?
I rather enjoyed pointing out to him that while rhetoric about defeating an ‘enemy’ in battle might work for the baby boomer generation, if the ACL wanted to actually gain the support of my generation they were going to need to be a little more creative. I then questioned what the ACL was doin to show christ’s love to the homosexual community. He responded like a politician who knows he’s been outmanouvered. He started talking before he knew what he was going to say… he flushed… he looked embarassed… admitted they were doing very little and that it needed to change… and then tried to argue that any money given to support gay aids victims etc was getting used as ammunition in the war against family values.
The guy isn’t stupid… he’s very smart, but he’s fighting for the fear and prejudice of the conservative bible belt baby boomers. His intellegence and advocacy would have been better used educating the same people about how UNCHRISTIAN their prejudice really is.
Unfortunately the major churches continue to bend over and take it from organisations like the ACL because they are so giggly and excited about having a face in politics… and they think these people are God’s annointed ones sent to deliver them. In our lust for power we have forgotten to reflect critically on our morals and on our stance, and the Australian church as it is voiced and seen in our community is now a Pariah and a mindless neo-conservative mass putting its weight behind something which is so insignificant to the key values of Christianity… it has some significants, but it’s minescule compared to the massive, and frequently ignored issues that plague this country of Aboriginal rights and welfare, and the increasingly intellectual and business orientated economy that favours the elite, and makes it increasingly difficult for those in the poverty trap to break free.
Its another giant exercise in missing the point.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Poor Kev.
Listening to the Joes today:
Hey hey, I know it wasn’t New York
Where I lost my mind
Hey hey, I know i must have left it
It was back home all the time
And where were you while we lay
So drunk that we died
Hey hey, I know, but who could blame us
Under pressure
And I know
I should have stayed in bed
That said, I probably come down more in the Andrew G camp in relation to this.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am
i can not believe what i just heard. Do not read the bible how God feels about homosexuality.
Yes we are to go and love them and preach the gospel to them but if they choose to live that abomination, we must not have anything to do with that. God made marriage between man and woman - if we are true disciples then why should we compromise and accept homosexuals to have the same rights as married couples. Unfortunately de facto heterosexual couples do get the same rights as married couples but thats because it is humanly possible. IT IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD TO BE IN SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and not humanly possible to conceive children - so why compromise GODS WORD and accept their iniquity. Every year homosexuals blaspheme God and shove their sin in our face at their annual parade. We as God Fearing Christians need to come out and be separate the Bible says and to only go in the world to preach the Gospel. This world has gone too far with sexual sin and we as christians have let it happen and now it is in our face. God loves these people and so do l But if they choose to live in their sin God can not look upon them and neither will i even eat with them. but if they choose to come out of their sin - God will make them a new creation and i would open not just my home but my life to them. NO COMPROMISE TO SIN!!!!!ROMANS 1:26 - 32!!!!!!!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
‘and neither will i even eat with them’
that is sad.