Youth Ministry and Me

Sadly this is not the announcement of my publishing and speaking deal, but rather that I wrote a letter to the editor of the Hobart Metropolitan paper The Mercury.  It was a response to this article about how we should get rid of faith from our morality debates.  They titlted my response 'Mob Rule without Jesus' which I thought was pretty cool.

Sadly The Mercury doesn't publish this part of the paper on line, so I have no way of knowing if anyone responds.

So it seems that the past week and weekend has been particularly prolific on the pro same-sex marriage front with marches and all sorts of things happening.

On Sunday we found out about a group of doctors who have come out and said that it's bad for families.  Predictably we're told by others that this is wrong.  Either way there is more to marriage than children so I'm unsure of why we keep making marriage about children in this debate.  The debate will be won or lost on the issues of 'equality' and 'love'.  It has nothing to do with children essentially.  I even heard Penny Wong on QandA on Monday night rightly tell Joe Hockey that making marriage about children was dumb as people have kids without marriage.

Anyway, I noticed in this group of doctors was a prominent Victorian psychiatrist Dr George.  She happens to be on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.  She has now said she is not in favour of same-sex marriage.  This is former AMA chief Karen Phelps response:

Gay rights activist and former AMA president Kerryn Phelps said Dr George's position on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission should be reviewed

Essentially the argument goes, Dr George does not support same-sex marriage.  Therefore she can no longer be on the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because same-sex marriage is a right. And this debate is about 'equality'.  Which leads me to the title of my post.  I suspect in the next few years when the same-sex marriage bill is passed if you are opposed to it will essentially be like saying, 'all black people are stupid'.  Or something like that.  That is just like (rightly so I might add) we have moved against racism so we will move against 'homophobia', which will equal not being pro-homosexuality, especially same-sex marriage.

So what to do about this?  Well on one level what we're debating at the moment is the definition of a word.  The word is marriage.  At the heart of the debate is 'equality' in the law.  I still maintain that the best way forward is for the marriage act to be completely amended and renamed the 'civil union' act.  Then at law my marriage becomes a 'civil union' with all the same rights and benefits afforded to me from my marriage.  Then if I want to say I'm married.  Then I simply go to my church and have a religious service.  So at law I am civil-unioned.  On a religious level I'm married.  This would seem to be the option that makes everyone happy.  We all get equality and marriage is not redefined.

Failing this, which I think is likely, then Christians have lost their claim to the word marriage.  Marriage will come to mean, not a God ordained way of being, but a secular legal way of being.  In this case we will need to think about a new word to use that describes what we currently call marriage.  One man and woman united together for life.  Perhaps wedded or christian marriage or something.

The whole same-sex marriage debate is an interesting case study in how one side of an argument brilliantly co-opted the debate and will eventually win.  That is, it seems obvious to me that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Australia (graphic comes from this article).

I've been fascinated how those in favour of same sex marriage how brilliantly co-opted phrases like 'marriage equality' and 'equal love'.  Phrases that quite frankly as an Australian it is hard not to agree with.  After all we're all supposedly equal in our egalitarian country!  How dare the government discriminate like this.  It is brilliant political and social campaigning and those who oppose same-sex marriage have been left looking unloving, hateful, oppressive even.  I'm not sure if there was a possibility of appearing any other way.

Another part of the campaign is that it is 'brave' to come out in support of same-sex marriage.  For example Barrack Obama is said to be brave.  On Twitter last night after Channel 10s The Project did a segment on same-sex marriage people said it was brave for people to support it.  But surely to be brave there requires some form of danger?  Surely to be brave holding your view has to threaten your safety in some way.  As far as I can tell it would actually seem more brave to voice your opposition to same-sex marriage.  For example it would have taken a lot of bravery if someone on The Project last night had spoken up to defend people who do not believe same-sex marriage is legitimate.  In the midst of their rhetoric of its time for people who don't agree with same-sex marriage to 'get into the 21st century' it would take a brave man or woman to stand up against that.  Likewise on QandA on ABC often I hear questions and comments, especially from the host, in relation to this issue that requires bravery to stand up against.  So the gay lobby have been successful at co-opting their 'equal love' mantra, thus making anyone who stands against equality morally bankrupt and totally unAustralian.  In doing so they cannot claim that it is brave to agree with this.  No it is brave to stand against this view.

On an Melbourne Anglican side note I read in an article today this quote:

Reverend Gary Bouma, from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, said the Marriage Act was discriminatory. "It's dehumanising to tell someone their love isn't right," he said.

I would be keen to know what the ArchBishop makes of Rev Gary Bouma's statement and if he thinks this to be an unorthodox position what will be done about it. I'd also love to know how the Anglican church deals with priests who stray off message.  Perhaps Rev Bouma is on message?  This is a pertinent issue for me as I continue to discern my call to Anglican ordination.

Ok, so part of me feels horribly nervous about this post.  Especially given I'm still in the early stages of germinating thought over this.  But over the last two weeks I've had a number of things in my life and learning come together which has made me decide that I believe in a big gospel.

What do I mean by a big gospel?  I mean that the good news that Jesus died on a cross to save me is not the sum total of the gospel.  Rather, the gospel is the good news of God's kingdom which brings salvation to me and you through the death and resurrection of Christ.  But it is also the good news of God's kingdom breaking into this world through the life of kingdom people, through the transformation of lives, through the feeding of the sick and helping of the needy, through the worship of the King of Kings... That is it think what is often called the 'fruit' of the gospel is actually part of the gospel itself.  A bit like how the fruit of a tree is part of the tree itself.

Let me explain some of the practical things that have pushed me in this direction:
1. A Testimony - This was actually the last thing that happened but it was stunning given my previous week.  Anyway, I listened to the most beautiful and amazing testimony of some Muslim friends.  Their story is nothing but miraculous.  The fascinating thing about it was, being Muslims their conversion moment happened when they realised Jesus was God.  That was the big deal thing for them.  That was the thing they struggled to accept.  That was the thing that God worked powerfully to convince them of.  It was only months later as they passionately worshipped and served in their church that they realised not only was Jesus God, but he had died for their sin too.  Now they had already surrendered their life to Jesus when they decided he was God.  But on a narrow view of the gospel, were they saved yet?  It is clear in their story that they were saved before realised Jesus died to forgive them.  Knowing that Jesus was God was the high point.  That was the moment.  It was as they recounted that moment where they cried and we cried as we listened to this testimony of the power of God.  A narrow 'mechanics of salvation' view of the gospel doesn't allow for this sort of story.  Though they were equally amazed when they discovered why Jesus had to die and what it meant.  But it wasn't their conversion moment.  I can't reconcile that story on a 'narrow' or 'mechanics of salvation' gospel.

2. Church Planting... In my church planting class we discussed how do you contextualise the gospel to your receptor culture (the people you're trying to reach).  How do you communicate in a meaningful way the problem of sin and it's solution.  It's difficult to do this in a way that connects with people if you have a narrow view 'mechanics of salvation' view.

3. Christian Worship... Sometimes I find church services horribly one dimensional.  Often I can't understand why people get upset when we sing a song like 'Our God' by Chris Tomlin and insist that the only biblical songs are 'Consider Christ' or 'Servants of the Gospel'.  I get frustrated when people push that everything must relate to the sermon.  Is not our experience of God bigger and broader than what we hear in sermon?  Can not other things be impressed upon us?  Perhaps these differences come down to a narrow vs. big view of the gospel?

I need to do more work on the theology.  That's granted.  But I've read some work by Scott McKnight and I find him compelling.  He has a new book I plan to read soon.  The gospel is the good news of the kingdom.

Some people say it's dangerous to mix the gospel (Jesus died for my salvation) with the 'fruit of the gospel'.  I'm unsure where the term 'fruit' of the gospel comes from biblically (granted it may be there), but I don't see how this is dangerous.  What is dangerous is not telling the full story.  Which of course includes leaving out the great news that Jesus died for our salvation!  I'm not suggesting I want to walk away from that at all!

In fact, let me finish the post by saying that the greatest day in my life was when I realised that Jesus had dealt with my sin on the cross.  That he paid the price.  That I had the chance to live for him because of what he did.  That my relationship with God is restored because of that death.  I'm moved by this.  I cry at the beauty of this when no one is looking.  But as I live my new life in God I can't help but see how it is the Gospel the big story of God (the great news that God who created the world, who is redeeming a people for himself, who is bringing peace, justifying sinners, making lives new, transforming relationships, sent his son to live, die rise and ascend) that is infecting every part of my being and life.

The brief for one of our subjects this semester was to take a couple of the 39 Articles and turn them into something we might put in a monthly or weekly pew sheet.  I was given number 13 and 14.  This is number 14.  Enjoy and comment.  (See part 1 here)

‘How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross?  I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.  I am not… denying the importance of the many activities by which we seek to challenge public life with the gospel… But I am saying that these are all secondary, and that they have power to accomplish their purpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.’