Bishop John

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ

You will have no doubt heard that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 has not been carried by the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Tasmania.  This means the proposed “Same-Sex Marriage” will not come into existence.

The decision is to be welcomed.  As Bishop of Tasmania I have sought to articulate, in private and in public, the reasonableness of retaining the current legal definition of marriage.  I am gratified that the Legislative Council has acted in this way.

However, there is much about the debate that saddens me.

Firstly, despite the best efforts of people on both sides of the debate, there have been times when it has been marked by divisiveness, hard-heartedness, and triumphalism.   It has been a painful debate about heartfelt issues.  As Christians Leaders, we should acknowledge any area in which we have contributed to that pain and, where appropriate, express sorrow and regret.

Secondly, it is clear that we have many failings in the art of constructive persuasion.  The perception that Christian belief equates to intolerance is unfair to be sure.  We must be careful to respond with respect and grace.  As Christians we communicate our perspective. We do not dictate morals; we seek by our actions, our words, and our manner to persuade others of life-giving truth.  The Christian speaks truth with assurance, boldness, and courage, but does so according to the way of Christ – with gentleness, love, and empathy.

Let us look to ourselves in the first instance.  Let us take seriously our liturgy of confessing our sins, reflecting on our failings, and so draw close to the grace of God.  Let us endeavour to empathise with the complex emotions of those who wrestle with their sexuality.  We are to reflect Christ and so share in the suffering of this world.

Thirdly, the Anglican Church continues to move forward in faith, hope and love fully trusting in God.  Other difficult issues will be before us shortly, as the Premier brings forward laws including the promotion of medical killing/ euthanasia. We continue to pray for her, her Government, the Parliament of Tasmania and for each other.  We continue to bear witness to God’s love in Christ for all people.

My prayer is that ongoing debate on this and other difficult issues may be done in a gracious and respectful manner.

With thanks for your participation in building a healthy church, transforming life.

Shalom,

+ John

John Harrower
Bishop of Tasmania

Christian and Muslim Dialogue in the light of recent events. A good word from Sam Green:

I see that a French magazine has published insulting cartoons of Muhammad. What a pathetic and counter-productive use of the freedom of speech. In recent years I have had the pleasure of meeting and debating many Muslims both publicly and privately. We have debated our points with vigor while remaining respectful of each other.

We must not let those who want to mock and insult ruin the important process of debate that we are having. Our debates/blogs/comments provide an opportunity to listen and learn from each other, to understand our own position better, to be confronted with uncomfortable truths, to practice patience and grace and to take the things of God seriously. To mock and insult avoids these things.

So I want to encourage all my Christian and Muslim friends to not let the mocking and insult win. Let’s keep on debating with respect.

In Christ

The Revd Samuel Green

PS Respectful title solution (by Sam in the Mercury 27/9/2012),

“A solution to the dilemna … is to speak of Muhammed as “the Muslim Prophet Muhammed”. This is a respectful title yet does not force the Shariah’s requirements on non-Muslims.”

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF TASMANIA

POSITION STATEMENT

REGARDING

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL 2012 (Tasmania)

• We continue to support the reforms of the Bacon Labour Government in 2003 and the rights and appropriate legal protection given for same-sex couples in Tasmania.
• We continue to support the provisions of the 2003 Relationships Act which created the Significant Relationships Register.  This Act provides full legal recognition to diverse categories of relationship.
• We continue to work for deep cultural change to overcome bullying and harassment of all people regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
• We do not support the Same-Sex Marriage Bill of 2012 and urge parliamentarians to vote against it.
• As a matter of principle we hold to the enduring policy of the Anglican Church that marriage is between a man and a woman.  This is the definition of marriage that is common to virtually all manner of cultures, religions and historical eras and interacts most closely with the objective realities of human biology.
• There are many theological, sociological, and philosophical arguments that can be made to argue against the redefining of marriage.  The current debate, however, is of more practical significance than simple semantics.
• We hold that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is bad law in that
• It creates a novel, arbitrary, discriminatory, legally inferior institution, “Same-Sex Marriage” that mistreats the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and does little if anything to advance any cause of equality.
• It unacceptably blurs the role of government. In order to extend the definition of marriage to encompass same-gender couples, the characteristics of marriage are limited to concepts of love and commitment. It is not the government’s role to regulate love and commitment, but objective practicalities.
• The objective practicalities of the law are determined by the way the law gives entitlements to citizens and obligations to government and society.  There are objective differences between categories of relationship which should inform, not obscure, the obligations of government and the entitlement of citizens.
• The rhetoric surrounding this debate and observation of the consequences of redefining marriage in other jurisdictions demonstrate that the redefinition of marriage is often used as a platform for religious intolerance.  There is an awareness that in other places antidiscrimination law and other provisions have been vehicles for those seeking the elimination of the exercise of religion and certain matters of conscience from the public sphere.

We continue to work for a healthy and life giving Tasmania, moving forward in faith, and in confidence in God. We seek by our actions, our words, and our manner to show God’s love for all people.

My mate and guest blogger, Russell Morton, reviews A Short History Of Christianity by Professor Geoffrey Blainey, the runner-up in the 2012 Christian Book of the Year Awards:

A book written by a Melbourne academic described by writer for The Australian Nick Cater as Gadfly Geoffrey Blainey, Australia’s most prolific historian, has been awarded runner-up in the 2012 Christian Book of the Year as judged by an interdenominational panel of experts on behalf of SPCKA.

It is both stimulating and usefully challenging to encounter familiar historical material treated from an entirely different perspective from one’s own. A Short History Of Christianity is a book which not only provides just such a challenge and stimulus, but does both in a smoothly engaging style which makes it hard to put it down once you begin.

For Tasmanians, Blainey’s first book, The Peaks Of Lyell, published in 1954 when he was just 22, has been a kind of primer of colonial Tasmanian history, and his most recent book taken with the more than 30 other books he has penned together provide comprehensive commentary and analysis of Australian, and wider, history. His A Short History Of The World has been highly acclaimed. He is responsible for the expressions the tyranny of distance and the controversial black armband view of history.

A friend with some knowledge of the field judged the depth of the book as above Church History 101, and certainly for the average reader the book, despite its 170,000 words, is highly engaging, packed with fascinating detail.

I found myself wondering at a number of points what exactly is Blainey’s personal position in matters of faith. Known to have a Methodist background, he nevertheless compiles and interprets the record dispassionately from the perspective of a very practised, disinterested historian. It is, certainly, a book which avoids carping on the various negatives which some raise in any discussion of church history; indeed, Cater’s review says, almost ruefully, that Blainey comes to praise Christianity, not to bury it.

The book is packed with descriptions of individuals and their work, of movements within Christianity. Most impressively, the writer demonstrates deep understanding of the many theological issues which lie at the heart of so much of the controversy which the Christian church has experienced over the millennia since its inception.

However, for the true believer, this book is disconcerting and perhaps therein lies its usefulness to Christian people. Blainey’s big picture of a religious movement waxing and waning may well be very accurate as a description of a sociological phenomenon, but does God see it this way? This is not a question which a professional historian can ask, but cannot be avoided by the faithful. And the book seems to give equal weight to mainstream Christianity and its many sects, some such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who are seen by orthodox Christians as so far from the ‘truth’. This sobering book is a short history of a lot more than I think of when I think of the history of the church.

But this is big picture stuff, a wonderful attempt to stand back and get as complete a view as can be managed within the scope of 550 pages. Blainey concludes,

“The debate about Christ’s message and influence will continue. Long after we are all dead and the twenty-first century is lost behind passing clouds, the fascination with him will persist; and many will still see him as triumphant.”

That is if he doesn’t wind up history first!

Watch and listen to an ABC “Big Ideas” address by Geoffrey Blainey about his book, here.  Also see page 3 of 6 at Awards for the Australian Christian Book of the Year 2012.

There’s a video doing the rounds at the moment.  It is by Matthew Vines and is often found under headlines such as “Every Biblical Argument Against Being Gay, Debunked Biblically.”  There’s a link to the video at the end of this article.  Here are my reflections.

Matthew Vines’ presentation is a moving experience. It gives great insight into the pain and anguish that interaction with the issue of homosexuality can cause if it is not handled with appropriate love, care and inclusion.

 Of particular insight and concern is the perception that traditional readings of the Bible are seen as assertions that gay people, in order to be holy, should also be lonely. But the Bible does not affirm loneliness as a means of holiness. Friendship and often used word “fellowship” rings throughout the Bible. We are called to live in community, grace, generosity and the hospitality of friendship. In traditional Aussie speak it is “mateship”.

 Alongside friendship/ fellowship, the Bible affirms both singleness and married life:

• Firstly it affirms “singleness” not as an affirmation of being alone (so not “single” at all really), but as an affirmation of personal status in which there is particular freedom to share friendship and affection within the wider community. “Singleness” is therefore a wonderful gift which celebrates the inclusivity of the gospel.
• Secondly it affirms marriage as the sexual union of a husband and wife as a precious context in which new life and family is created and celebrated. Being married is therefore also a gift which celebrates, in particular, the complementary exclusivity of the gospel.

Despite his obvious sincerity Mr. Vines fails to make an accurate academic biblical argument. The book Sexegesis is a relevant resource for those looking for a rebuttal on specific points. In broad terms, however, Mr. Vines’ argument fails in that he approaches the biblical texts on the same terms as some of those who would misuse them against him.

He treats six Bible verses and draws his conclusions specific to those passages but fails to engage with broader affirmations, such as the positive affirmations of non-sexual friendships. Unlike the unmarried or married states, there is no biblical affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. Same gender relationships are affirmed as non-sexual celebrations of friendship.

Above all Mr. Vines applies relies heavily on assumptions about the nature of sexuality and the biblical application of sexuality. The biblical affirmations of relationship presuppose that self-actualisation (i.e. the expressing of one’s identity in the most true and life-giving way) derives from agape love, the love of self-sacrifice. It does not derive from eros love, the love of chemistry and “natural” inclinations (of any orientation). The Bible calls all people, regardless of orientation, to express their sexuality self-sacrificially by restricting it to celibacy or the intimacy of one’s spouse.

Mr. Vines obviously feels torn between his desire for companionship and a family. His desire for family can be fulfilled heterosexually. The creation of a family requires self-denial and self-sacrifice on the part of any father, including in the area of sexuality. Mr. Vines therefore struggles to extend the same self-denial and self-sacrifice to his desire for companionship.

We can identify with this struggle, and empathise, yet nevertheless disagree with his assertions about the Biblical message. The cost of following the Biblical affirmations of life is high for all of us.

For interaction on similar issues of biblical interpretation and exegesis:

http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/06/29/sexuality-and-slavery-part-one/

http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/07/02/sexuality-and-slavery-part-two/

http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/07/12/sexuality-and-slavery-part-three/

http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/09/01/sexuality-and-slavery-part-four/

http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/02/03/sexuality-and-slavery-part-five/

Click here to watch Matthew Vine’s presentation.

Click here to watch a helpful video on gay Marriage by Dr John Dickson