julia baird

Australia’s Pharisees

/ MurrayCampbell

John Dickson has this afternoon written a helpful response to Julia Baird’s column, “Same-sex marriage result was a defeat for only one type of Christianity – and a triumph for the grassroots sitting in church pews”.

He has corrected important mistakes made by Baird about the nature of grace and the love of Christ. For instance, while the current secular definition of love insists upon agreement, the love God displayed toward in Christ Jesus is premised on the fact that God does not agree with us.

John also challenged Baird’s unsubstantiated claim, that the majority of people in the pews support same sex marriage. With great certainty, Baird proclaimed,

“Who speaks for God?”

The answer according to Julia Baird is, the silent majority in Church pews who support same sex marriage.

“It was… a defeat for a certain brand of public, conservative Christianity, one that has focused on sexuality, morality and traditional views of men and women…

And a triumph for the grassroots, those in the pews who – as polls repeatedly showed – quietly tolerated but did not share the views of their church leaders.”

In addition to the evidence John has produced, is research conducted by NCLS in 2016. This data is more substantive than the few straw polls that have elsewhere been conducted, for the simple reason, NCLS was asking the question to people in Churches, as opposed to the general population.  Other polling failed to differentiate between nominal Christians & practicing Christians. NCLS is at least polling people who are attending Church (the demographic that Baird alleges  are in majority supportive of same sex marriage). NCLS data reveals:

73% of church attenders did not support same sex marriage

14% were unsure, 

13% were in favour.

Having said that, even if the majority of people in our pews support same sex marriage, does that make it the voice of God, as Baird purports? Of course not. Christianity is defined by Jesus Christ in the Scripture, not by ecclesial consensus or popular vote. It’s one of the great dangers when we turn to popularism rather than biblical truth for our theological and moral convictions.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

In this post I wish to add to the conversation, a comment about Julia Baird’s use of the word, Pharisee. In her article she compares Christians who don’t support same sex marriage with Pharisees, whereas those who truly speak for God are the masses inside the nation’s churches who are letting out a great  “Amen” to same sex marriage.

Name calling is a particularly unhelpful by-product of the current social climate, and even we Christians are sometimes guilty of joining in.  It is easy to call a group of Christians, Pharisee, but is it the right label? Or as Stephen McAlpine asked yesterday, is this the new Godwin’s Law?

Everyone knows the name of the most famous group of bad guys in the story on Jesus, the Pharisees. But who were the Pharisees, and has Julia Baird got it right? I reckon she is mostly wrong and little bit right.

Pharisees were a class of social and political elites who greatly influenced and controlled much of Jewish society in the century before Christ and into first century A.D. Very few Pharisees belonged to the priesthood (they were not clergy), although they held considerable religious sway. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, their influence eventually diminished due to a series of sharp disagreements between themselves and the official Jewish clergy in the First Century.

Pharisees are most remembered for their opposition to the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ. In the historical records we learn of the Pharisees’ persistent harassment of Jesus, protesting his preaching, criticising his good deeds, condemning his beliefs, and plotting his downfall. They didn’t stop at expressing disagreement, but resorted to all the tactics available at their disposal in order to have Jesus silenced.

We need to keep in mind that while the name Pharisee is today a pejorative term, this was not the case at the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry; they were greatly esteemed and respected in local communities, and having the ear of the ruling authorities of the day. The New Testament reveals another side to the Pharisees, namely their intolerance toward those in society who didn’t live up to their standards. They couldn’t stomach Jesus’ commitment to the poor and outcast.

It is also important to understand that the problem with Pharisees was not that they held God’s law and righteousness too highly, but that they were self-righteous. They took pride in their self-perceived ability to follow the Mosaic law, and given that they were governed by pride, they managed to find loop holes and extensions to the law in order to satiate their wants. They added hundreds of stipulations that had no grounding in the Jewish Scriptures. For example, whereas the law commanded fasting once a year, on the day of atonement, Pharisees fasted twice a week. This new social norm was not followed by Jesus and he was criticised for not adhering to it.

Important to the topic at hand, it was not Jesus who taught a progressive view of marriage, it was the Pharisees. Jesus consistently and repeatedly affirmed the Genesis paradigm for marriage (which continues to be held by Christians today). Pharisees, on the other hand, had deconstructed and reframed marriage in order to justify their sexual proclivities, and they challenged Jesus for not supporting their progressive views. So, if we are wanting to follow Jesus (accepting his view of marriage and to love and show grace), it is paramount that we resist the current modelling in many Western cultures.

By the way, I am not suggesting that there are no Pharisees within Australian Churches, either among clergy or congregation. Of course there are, but the insult kinda falls flat when the word is misappropriated. Nevertheless, there is something in Baird’s criticism that is worth being reminded of, and to humbly check before God – while Pharisaism is incompatible with the Lord Jesus and therefore with Christianity, are there not occasions when we dip into self-righteousness and are tempted to measure others by our own standards? 

The root of self-justification is unbelief and pride, and pride inherently sets the self against others, belittling those who don’t meet your standard and envying those who out do you. Self-Justification in all its guises is ugly and self-defeating, which is perhaps why Jesus dedicates so many words to exposing the Pharisees.

We are not presenting a truthful or attractive Gospel if we parade the streets of Melbourne in saintly masks and garb; self-righteousness doesn’t fool anyone. And yet, a Christianity that modulates with the changing currents of the culture, is almost certainly one that has drifted from the anchor that is the Gospel. It is no wonder that progressive theology in Australia always leads to declining churches, moral confusion, and the praise of society. If our version of Christianity consistently reflects popular sexual ethics, might I suggest that there is something amiss with our understanding of Christianity. Our nation and our churches don’t need any more Pharisees, whether appear as social conservatives or social progressives. Australia needs Christians who walk with grace and conviction, love and faithfulness, not exuding self confidence and avoiding cultural-pleasing.

“Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.” (Jn 15:4).

 

Julia has since attempted to qualify her article on social media, explaining that she is not calling all conservatives, Pharisees.  In response to John’s article, she said, “NB: I wasn’t calling parish priests or conservatives Pharisees! I was referring to church leaders w. skewed priorities.”

This qualification however doesn’t diminish the charge she makes in the original piece.

 

 

 

 

Drumming along to the wrong beat

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

Yesterday’s The Drum invited two Anglican ministers and an atheist to discuss the question of marriage and homosexuality.

nu1605h183s00_57eb4f3d8eba7_1024

Panellist Jane Gilmore came out and suggested, ‘Logically, I can’t see how Christian stance on homosexuality and ‘marriage equality’ makes sense’.

Her reasoning for this Christian’ illogic’ is that Christianity is about accepting ‘Jesus as the Son of God and the Gospels as the word of God’ but that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and so Christians should support both homosexuality and Same-sex marriage.

It is true, accepting Jesus as God’s Son and believing the Bible to be the word of God are both essential (and might I add, sublime) parts of the Christian faith, but is her rationale about marriage accurate?

I understand most Australians no longer read the Bible, and rarely listen to sermons expounding the Bible, but when one goes on national television and erroneously suggests the support of Jesus Christ, I can hear someone shouting fact check!

When we open and read the Bible we soon discover that Jesus often spoke about marriage, and when he did he repeatedly affirmed these two points: First, he affirmed the Old Testament view of marriage, that it is between a man and a woman intended for life. Second, Jesus called all other sexual behaviour porneia, meaning sexual immorality. It is important to note that Jesus was not towing the normal cultural line  of his culture; often he spoke about marriage in front of people who contravening Old Testament teachings by divorcing their wives for all kinds of crazy and wrong reasons. He challenged the marital norms of his day by reaffirming one woman and one man for life.

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh,” the words of Jesus in Mark‬ ‭10:6-8‬.

According to Jane Gilmore, not only did Jesus have nothing relevant to say about current questions over marriage, homosexuality is only mentioned in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, Gilmore also gets this wrong. The New Testament speaks of homosexuality on three occasions. We shouldn’t make more of it than there is, but we cannot ignore the fact that on every occasion the New Testament speaks of homosexual behaviour, it does so negatively.

It should be said, none of these passages are pitching their argument against people who experience same-sex attraction or sexual confusion, but of practice. Indeed, there are many Christians who live with same-sex attraction, and have chosen to live a life of abstinence.

Abstinence is of course portrayed as one of today’s deadly sins; a vice not a virtue. But perhaps this says more about our society than it does about the good of self-control.

Gilmore is guilty of one further error, although it’s understandable for those who haven’t read the Bible: It is a mistake to pit Jesus’ words against the rest of the Bible, for it is believed he is the ultimate author of all Scripture, and as Jesus himself said, all the Scriptures point to him. Again, the 3 New Testament mentions of homosexuality are found in the midst of discussions exploring the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what is considered ‘sound doctrine’.

The two Anglican ministers on the panel unfortunately did not correct Jane Gilmore, and I suspect the reason is, revising her lack of Bible knowledge would expose the hypocrisy of their own views. Let’s be clear, these two men were on the program specifically because they support same-sex marriage, a position which Julia Baird pointed out is not supported by most Anglicans. The truth is, all major Christian denominations in Australia share what we might call, the classic view of marriage.

Rod Bower, of Gosford Anglican, tried to give some credence to Gilmore’s miss-exegesis when he claimed the Bible authors only knew of heterosexuality and nothing of homosexuality. To back up this allegation, he suggested that the Bible’s only issue with homosex is when heterosexuals are doing it. This is a very poor reading of Romans ch.1, and only few scholars would even entertain this as a possible interpretation. The phrase ‘abandoned natural relations’ (Romans 1:27) does not mean heterosexuals acting contrary to their nature. The noun phusikos is used in both Scripture and Hellenistic Jewish traditions to speak of created order. Neither Paul, nor any Bible writer, differentiates between“homosexuals” committing acts of homosex and “heterosexuals” committing homosex. Homosexual behaviour, regardless of how one might define one’s sexuality, is contrary to God’s created order, contrary to phusikos.

Our atheist professing panellist did get something right, Jesus did speak about love. It’s true, Jesus said a lot about love, and he wasn’t just a preacher, he practiced love, and he loved those whom others were unwilling to love. But this love Jesus taught and modelled was not expressed in a moral vacuum, such that we can fill it up any way we like, and his definition of love was not derivative of popular morality or from religious shibboleths. Rather, his love is an expression to human beings of Divine love, a Trinitarian love, a holy love.

Jesus had plenty to say about sex and marriage, but arguing that Jesus would support same sex marriage is as incongruous as predicting Sydney Swan supporters will be barracking for the Doggies at Saturday’s AFL Grand Final. In Jesus we will not find an ally for progressive sexuality, we do however discover a God who demonstrated profound love and concern for those who found themselves in alternate situations, some by choice, others forced upon them. He gave up his life to promise a new kind of life that is more ultimate and satisfying, no matter where we have found ourselves.

The Sri Lankan evangelist, Ajith Fernando tells the story, ‘A convert to Christianity, when asked what attracted him to Christ, said “what other God would die for people like me?’

People may choose to disagree with Jesus but let’s not debase these important conversations by misrepresenting him, or anyone for that matter. At a time when our national discourse is often overrun with stereotypes and misinformation about opposing views, is it asking too much that we get the facts right?

Julia Baird defends John Dickson…sort of

/ MurrayCampbell

“It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree.” (Leo McKern)

Like an episode of ‘Rumpole of the Bailey’, Julia Baird yesterday came to the defence of John Dickson, although in a somewhat less convincing performance.

John-Dickson.jpg,q1414797734.pagespeed.ce.xwQMht8rl1

One week ago Rev Dr John Dickson raised a question on his personal Facebook page, concerning the manner in which the same sex marriage debate is being conducted in Australia. Within hours the post was taken down by Facebook, and then reinstated one day later with a somewhat fuzzy apology attached.

In yesterday’s The Age, Julia Baird came out swinging, first of all using testimony from Prince and then proceeding to argue, ‘Dickson’s questioning should not be slammed but aired, and he is right to argue conservative viewpoints should not be so rapidly shut down or dismissed as hate. It was very odd of Facebook to delete this post.’

At the same time, Baird didn’t hold back in offering her own view on Dickson’s comments,

‘This is a massive, inadvertently inflammatory call and one I do not agree with. Surely acceptance, tolerance and absence of judgment about difference would make LGBTI youth feel better. But, isn’t it up to them, to say what makes them feel better? It is also highly provocative to accuse those who either belong to, or are allies of the LGBTI+ community of augmenting the very hatred they have spent their lives trying to fight and diminish.’

The fact that a journalist in Australia has freedom to speak her mind and to disagree with another Australian, and to do so in the most direct manner, is a sign of a healthy society. Would we want our sitz im leben to be less than this? 

In her closing statement, rather than reiterating Dickson’s right to offer an opinion, it seems as though Baird crossed the floor to the prosecutor’s table, and it is these remarks that I find most odd.

Baird finishes by quoting another Facebook post, that of Sydney Chaplain, Garry Lee Lindsay,

“I can’t see how this helps anything. Please don’t try to convince me that it is intellectual debate or you are approaching the subject with an open mind and a loving heart. You might be, but why do you have to say it? And why is it so important to make comment about other people’s lifestyle or culture on Facebook? Just go out and make friends with people because they are people, made in the image of the Creator, inseparable from God’s love.

“What about calling people to prayer for those poor people in Japan and Ecuador that lost their lives and family in the earthquakes? To start with!!! What about we stop writing posts like this one, make some soup and sandwiches, go and hand it out to the hundreds of rough sleepers on our streets every night and give them some company? Why don’t I? Because I’d rather whinge about the terrible people that aren’t like me, don’t think like me, don’t live like me. And do it from a distance, because then at least I know I’m OK. What a wretched man I am? Who will save me? Thanks be to God.”

First of all, Lee-Lindsay (and presumably Baird, given she is appealing to the quote) dismisses the importance of people offering comments about lifestyle and culture matters on Facebook. Although I wonder, does  Lee-Lindsay realise that he is guilty of the very thing he is accusing of others of doing? ‘Others mustn’t use Facebook to express opinions about sexuality issues, like I am doing right now…!’

Do Lee-Lindsay and Baird not realise that these issues of marriage and of transgenderism are very much public issues? Marriage may be a personal relationship, but it is also a societal one. If it were not, why are wedding ceremonies held in the presence of witnesses, and why does Government have a role and why do we have a national marriage registry?  Similarly, recent discussions on transgenderism demonstrates it is not merely a private issue: should boys be allowed to use girls toilets in schools? How is society to relate to people who don’t wish to identify with their biological sex? It is incongruous to suggest these issues cannot be discussed in public forums; these matters effect families, schools, communities and Governments. And if they are discussed, are only agreeable voices to be allowed?

Second, the quote implies that Christians such as John Dickson are whinging as they make public statements about SSM, when what they should be doing is ‘making friends with people’ and helping people where they are at. This is not only a very smug caricature of Christians, it is hugely presumptuous. How do they know we are not providing food for the hungry, and not praying for victims of those earthquakes?

Can we not do both? John Newton was a preacher and an anti-slavery campaigner. John Wesley preached more sermons than most and he started orphanages. Jesus preached, taught and addressed all manner of social and spiritual issues, and even daring to question the political realms, and he cared for the poor and broken. Christians I know are committed both to speaking and sharing, preaching and praying, and I have no doubt John Dickson does likewise.

Despite initially supporting John Dickson’s right to post on Facebook, Baird lands on what is becoming an all to common place; while John Dickson technically has the right to freedom of speech, he really shouldn’t say anything unless he is offering unqualified support for those who wish to pursue non-heterosexual lifestyles. In fact, Christians should stick to helping people and leave public discourse to others.

Ultimately, Julia Baird falls for the false antithesis: disagreement equals hate. Why is Baird propagating such poor logic? The latter may be an expression of the former, but not necessarily. For example, as a parent there are occasions when I disagree with my children’s choices, and yet I still love them. Indeed, love necessitates that I sometimes disagree with them. More than that, Jesus Christ lived and spoke constant love, and yet this love sometimes manifested itself by offering correction to people, even rebuke.

If Christians are to be anything like Jesus we will continue to trust and graciously speak his words, the gospel, and seek to love others as Christ has loved us. As far as John Dickson has tried to emulate his Lord and Saviour, he given us a worthwhile example to follow. It is clearly unpopular, but popularity is often a poor test for what is truly good and right.