Recently a parishioner commented that most of my sermons revolve around one theme, sometimes subtlety and sometimes rather plainly. In this person's mind, the theme is that of priorities. Essentially, what comes first in our hearts, in our work, in our words? While I probably wouldn't have articulated my major theme as such, I can't disagree with the observation. I likely would have said that the Kingdom of God is my central theological tenet, but that really is about priorities. God has made us a priority with God's abundant grace and love, and the question we are faced with is- how will we respond?
I start this post with a conversation about priorities because in my mind, Christians can, and should, do better when it comes to deeply knowing and being articulate about their faith. The line from 1 Peter (3:15) has always been an important one to me- "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." It is as GK Chesterton said "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Christianity is not for the feint of heart. Living for the Kingdom of God demands our full attention and best efforts. Christianity has never done well as a "back burner" sort of project.
These thoughts came to mind when I watched a video online last week. This video was posted by many friends online, so I had high hopes for it. It is a video of Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, responding to a pastor who has some concerns about his Rudd's change of stance on gay marriage. It's a rather short video, so I'd suggest watching it to form your own opinion before reading mine.
To say that I came way unimpressed is an understatement. What troubled me is how shallow the arguments on both sides were. The pastor's "argument" is that Jesus says that a man shall leave his parents and join with his wife; therefore same-sex marriage is wrong. The rebuttal wasn't any better- slavery is in the Bible, so therefore we can't follow everything in the Bible; and furthermore, God is love, and I just can't see a God of love condemning people for being in love.
I hope you can quickly see the holes and shallowness of these arguments.
Pastor: Seriously, in all of the Bible and theology you can't find a better argument than Jesus quoting a passage from the Torah and then applying it out of context? This is an extremely weak and disappointing argument against same-sex marriage. If you've read much on this blog, you know that I'm a big supporter of equal rights/treatment under the law and Church law for same-sex marriage. As much as I disagree with this pastor, I can think of many better arguments for his position. And that's a shame, because he came to that event clearly intending to pose that question. He really should have brought a better question and rationale to go along with it. It's almost that he was shocked when someone asked him to "give an account" of his position.
Candidate: His response is no better. So now we can pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to keep and which parts we throw away? That didn't really work well for Thomas Jefferson. There was no exegesis offered, no reasons given for why we should, for example, accept the passages that suggest that "God is love" (since it appears to be the foundation of his argument) while putting aside the passages that go against his worldview.
Now the response "God is love," is a valid one, and one I'd agree with. But how do you connect a loving God to the ecclesial adoption of same-sex marriage as normative? I think it can be done, and should be done. But he offers no such line of logic. He just throws it out there as if it can stand on its own. So then, by his logic, God is love, and God would never condemn someone who _____ (you can fill in the blank). That is the line of logic used to poke holes in the argument for same-sex marriage by those who (more convincingly) take the pastor's point of view. And it's a very slippery slope to simply "win" and argument by appealing to "God is love," or "that's just a mystery."
Both arguments are weak, under-developed, easily undermined, and lazy. Christians can, and should, do better than this. Now I realize that this candidate is not theologically trained in an academic setting, and I'm not suggesting that every person that calls themselves a Christian needs an academic degree in the field. But if you're going to draw attention to yourself as a Christian, or speak on issues of Christianity, you owe it to yourself, to the Body of Christ, and to God to do better than offering arguments that aren't worth the weight of the breath used to make them up.
And the reason why I'm so strongly reacting to this issue is that it makes Christians into a caricature. It gives those who are against the Church a very convenient "straw man" to poke holes in. And it shows a real disregard for the theological and academic aspects of faith. Good theology is worth our time, it is worth our efforts, and enriches not only our faith, but the faith of those around us. It flies in the face of good (and Anglican, I might add) theology which roots itself in Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.
There are books to read, classes to attend, conversations to have. But just like the rest of the Christian journey, it takes intentionality. If we are to give an account as suggested by 1 Peter 3:15, we will need to make lifelong Christian Formation a priority in our life. Right there along with stewardship and prayer, diving deeper into our faith is the task of the Christian.
While I give this politician credit for taking a risk by publicly speaking of his faith journey and standing up for justice, after watching this video, my first though was "we can, and should, do better."
