For Goodness Sake

There was a news report this week about the alarming increase in childhood obesity. It included an interview with a mother who told the reporter how food packaging was to blame. Each time she went shopping with her toddler he would see the culprit food and cry, “I want it!” The mother told how even when she said no, her child would throw a tantrum and scream until she gave in to him. “If the packaging wasn’t so attractive to children”, she reasoned, “they wouldn’t do that!” she told the reporter. After all, good mothers give their children what they want.

WHAT IS ‘GOOD’?

Whoever gives thought to the Word will discover good,
and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
Proverbs 16:20

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked the young man. Good is one of those standards we all use to measure things, experiences, circumstances, and among other things, people. Unlike in the past, today we consider that good is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, if the Ancients held this new notion of goodness, the young man would have had no trouble immediately responding to Jesus with something like, “Good? I just reckon You are. It’s just my opinion.” But he didn’t, because the ancients didn’t view goodness as a matter of personal opinion. They regarded goodness as something independent of themselves and their opinions.

There are many things, such as giving into a screaming toddler in a supermarket, that are considered (at least by all screaming toddlers) as good – yet, experience tells us they are not. There are usually not that many toddlers in a supermarket at any one time, but if all two or three of them decide to throw an I-want-that-lolly-pop tantrum, they make more noise than the dozens of adult shoppers who are also in the store! I reckon if we took a vote of those shoppers at that moment around 72% of them would vote that it would be good for the frazzled mother to give-in immediately to the tantrum-throwing toddler. (This would really be a vote for peace and quiet!) But I also reckon that if you surveyed those same people under different circumstances (while not shopping or listening to screaming toddlers) 72% would vote that it would be good for the mother to stand her ground and not give-in to her tantrumming-toddler.

Life teaches us that there are many things which most of us think are not good for us, but are actually very good for us. This includes things like exercise, constructive criticism, rest, attending church, and practising. But it also includes giving noisy people what they demand – such as giving screaming toddlers the lollie-pops they demand, even though it can lead to tooth decay and even obesity. This is one of the ways we know that some of the things called good are not because the consequences are universally bad. We should all pursue the universal good. It ensures the best welfare for all – which is surely what we want – even though tantrum-throwing toddlers won’t like it one bit! 

There are three issues facing our society at the moment which are not good. The consequences of these issues are devastating and literally deadly. These issues are: (i) The sexual abuse of the vulnerable (particularly children and women); (ii) Fatherless children (40%of Australian children now grow up without a father; teen suicides are 5 times higher from fatherless homes; around 75% of prisoners come from fatherless homes; boys raised in fatherless homes are more likely to commit rape; fatherless children fare worse academically and have the worst employment prospects); (iii) Deteriorating rates of mental health (one in five Australians experience mental illness each year; mental illness now accounts for 27% of all work disability in Australia; 14% of Australians suffer from anxiety attacks).

For goodness sake Australia, we should do all we can to address each of these three issues, and simultaneously do all we can to stop doing those things which matters worse. This at least should include-

• Discouraging the sexualisation of women in the arts, advertising and media. It’s time now for us as a society to stop deluding ourselves that the public sexualising of women is morally neutral and confusing for most males.

• Encouraging the raising of children by their married biological parents and encouraging potential parents to prepare appropriately for marriage not just their wedding. The research is overwhelming that children fare best when raised by their own loving married biological parents and we need to stop kidding ourselves that children can be raised by any two people.

• Recognise that mental health outcomes and sexual morality are often connected. We should note which sector of society is more likely to suffer mental illness and its negative consequences (such as suicide), and find out what the common denominator is.

¶ Praise the LORD! Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is good,
for His steadfast love endures forever!
Psalm 106:1

Coming back to our original conversation between Jesus and the young man who called Him, “good”, the young man rightly assumed that Christ was good because of what he heard and saw. Amazingly, all religions and people acknowledge that everything Jesus taught about how to live was universally good. But at the same time, most religions and people don’t know what Jesus taught! I guess this is why we hear people say that Jesus said nothing about marriage, or nothing about sexuality, or nothing about mental health, or nothing about how men should view and treat women? 

Jesus shocked His original audience by declaring that a good life is not attained by obvious and external things, but by that which is invisible and internal, yet soon becomes apparent to all.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
Matthew 15:19

Each of the moral corruptions cited by Jesus are described in the Old Testament Law His audience was familiar with. This is why men like Rev. Sam Allberry, who has battled with same-sex attraction all his life, recognise that Christ taught that a person’s identity is not linked to their sexual attraction. Because of this, Sam acknowledges that Jesus, a man who never sex and never married, taught that sexual immorality would both immediately and eternally “defile” a person. This is why, he states, that he must battle with his same-sex attraction and live a celibate life, all for the sake of honouring his Lord and Saviour (watch). Before Sam, Dr. Henri Nouwen, a Catholic scholar who had come to the same conclusion as Sam, also prayerfully wrestled with his same-sex attraction because he too understood what Christ had taught about the matter. They battled for goodness sake. 

GO BACK TO GO FORWARD

I recently listened to Oxford Scholar, Os Guinness, describe how every major advance in culture, the Reformation – the Renaissance – the American Revolution –  involved “going back” in order to progress forward. Curiously today, those who identify themselves as ‘Progressives’ want to abandon the past and ‘move on’. Dr. Guinness showed how every culture that forgot the wisdom of the past was doomed to fail. For goodness sake, we in Australia need to remember that the things that do a society good are not always the things that tantrum-throwing toddlers demand – especially when, in those parts of the world where their demands have been met – those things which blight a society (abuse of children, sexual exploitation and abuse of women, increasing rates of suicide, deteriorating mental health outcomes) become even more widespread. 

¶ Thus says the LORD:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Jeremiah 6:16

Amen.

Pastor Andrew Corbett

When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage, We Are Not Your Enemy

We Are Not Your Enemy

Christians Want For You What You Want

by Dr. Andrew Corbett

We all need acceptance, love and respect. We all have a right to be treated with equality. This is why I totally get why so many people are in favour of same-sex marriage. It’s why so many people who identify themselves as part of the same-sex attracted communities are fighting so passionately for the laws in Australia to be changed to provide for same-sex marriage. As a Christian, I want for these people what they want - because I think everybody needs acceptance, love and respect, and equality. But I don’t think that same-sex marriage is the way to get it and it seems that 90% of the LGBTQ communities agree.

The Brooklyn psychologist, Professor Abraham Maslow (1908 - 1970), wrote the book Motivation And Personality (1954) in which he argues that all psychologically healthy human beings have a ‘hierarchy of needs’.  

Maslow made an astute observation that people generally need to feel - physically well, safe, accepted (“Love/belonging”), valued (“Esteem”), and dignity (“Self-actualization”). This is why I understand why people feel so strongly about the need to introduce same-sex marriage into Australia. As several Irish respondents told the media after Ireland changed its laws in May 2015 to introduce same-sex marriage, “Now we will be accepted for who we are!” Acceptance is a critical human need. 

Yet despite the vigorous appeals by the LGBTQ communities for same-sex marriage - built on the very persuasive arguments that the introduction of same-sex marriage will alleviate the alarming suicide rates of young men who identify as homosexual compared with similar aged men in the general population, the abnormally high rates of depression among the members of the LGBTQ communities, and the generally poorer physical health conditions of this sector of society - the largely untold (unnoticed?) fact is that where same-sex marriage has been introduced 90% of those who identify as being in a same-sex relationship show no interest in same-sex marriage. 

This is the case in both New Zealand and Ireland - two of the most recent examples of where these arguments were used and the laws consequently changed to provide for it. In fact, one of the first states in the USA to introduce same-sex marriage was Massachusetts - which did so largely on the basis of these arguments (high rates of very poor mental health, abnormally high rates of suicide). Yet, after introducing same-sex marriage there, which had an initially higher than average take-up by same-sex couples, there was no alleviation of these factors - and according to some analysts, may have actually worsened. And this seems to be repeated elsewhere also. Despite the appeals and claims to the contrary, same-sex marriage is not a boon for the LGBTQ communities and may even be a disappointing bane.

Christians are not the enemy of the LGBTQ communities. Most Christians want what the most vocal representatives of these communities are calling for: acceptance, tolerance, and respect. But the facts seem to speak for themselves: that same-sex marriage does not deliver this, and may indeed make achieving this utterly allusive. Despite the vitriolic claims that Christian are ‘bigots’ for opposing same-sex marriage, it could actually be an act of great compassion on the part of the Christian community toward the LGBTQ communities to explain why changing the Marriage Act will not, and indeed, cannot deliver what they expect. And based on the numbers of same-sex couples in Canada, USA, New Zealand, Europe and Ireland who have not taken up same-sex marriage, it seems that around 90% of the LGBTQ communities agree: same-sex marriage is not the answer they are looking for.

When Premises Are Wrong

One of the reasons why same-sex marriage has failed so completely to address the deeply concerning issues of abnormally high depression and suicide rates among their communities, is that the premise of same-sex marriage is enormously mistaken. (A premise is the foundational notion upon which a conclusion is arrived.) In this instance the premise is that a person’s worth and value is measured and determined by the relationship they have with another person. But this is entirely false and even quite a cruel way to regard human worth. 

Marriage does not add worth or intrinsic value to a man or a woman when they marry each other. Marriage does not even mean that a person has now become acceptable. And marriage certainly does not make someone equal with any other human being. Worth, value, acceptance and equality are all grounded in the inherent and God-given uniqueness of all human beings which the American founding fathers stated when they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Christians sometimes refer to this truth as the imago dei (“the image of God”).

Christians don’t just ground their understanding of human worth and value in the imago dei to oppose same-sex marriage - or even homosexuality per se - it is also the basis for saying to a young teenage girl that your worth and value is not found in having a boyfriend. It’s found in whose image you bear. It is on this premise that we understand that love can be given, received, felt, without ever having to sexualise it. A young person should not be hoodwinked into thinking that it is another human being who determines whether they are acceptable, lovable, of any worth or even equal. The Christian boldly declares, often to their own hurt, that a human being is uniquely created in the image of God and is therefore infinitely valuable and supremely loved. Acceptance by God is one of the deepest cravings of every human heart and is found not in marriage, but in our relationship to our Maker.

What Jesus Taught

It is well known that Jesus Christ was one of the greatest men to have walked the earth. His greatness is seen most beautifully in the way He loved others. He is also the greatest example of the truth that love does not mean anything goes. On the contrary, the way Jesus loved was the supreme mix of compassion with care-filled truth. In John 8 Jesus is presented with the woman caught in the act of adultery (one of the six forms of sexual immorality forbidden in the Bible, Leviticus 18:20). In a remarkable display of the highest compassion for the woman who had been dragged out into the dusty streetscape by the religious authorities, Jesus shows that true love does not tolerate anything when He offers forgiveness to the woman and then with great tenderness tells her-

Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”  

John 8:10-11

“Go and sin no more” Jesus told her. He didn’t trivialise or tolerate the sin in which this woman was caught. And in marked contrast to those in our day who consider that sexualising a relationship with another person has no moral implications, Jesus Christ reinforced what He had inspired the Biblical authors to write: that sexuality and morality are intrinsically linked. In fact, He emphatically stated that if sexuality was trivialised into acts of immorality it would put a person’s soul in eternal peril (Matthew 15:19-20). But He went further and reinforced what the Scriptures had already declared about the sanctity of marriage - its candidates, its purpose, and its requirements, when He said-

He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Matthew 19:4-6

This is the only definition of marriage that Jesus gave - not merely for His followers, but for all people whom He created. When Christians endorse Christ’s statement about marriage and sexuality, we are not being the enemy, we are showing fidelity to Christ and compassion for all people - all people. As I have spoken with my non-Christian friends who have disagreed with me about same-sex marriage, we have soon found ourselves looking at Christ’s view on sexuality and marriage which has surprised them because they had been led to believe that Jesus was all about unconditional acceptance (commonly confused as being ‘love’) and that He actually said nothing about marriage. When they discover that neither is the case they also find that the motive of most Christians is not intolerance, bigotry, or phobia, but genuine care.

Pain And Brokenness

When a person has experienced the opposite of what Professor Maslow described as the basic needs of every human - wellness, safety, acceptance, and love - they experience deep pain and brokenness. Some wounds are obvious but some of the most painful are not. Many of these wounds result in brokenness, particularly sexual brokenness. This leads to the very misguided notion that safety, wellness, acceptance and love can only, or even ultimately, result through sexualisation. This is broken thinking. Some of the most hurt and lonely people in the world are those who have sexualised their pursuit of these basic human needs rather than discovering how to truly have these needs met.

I have been somewhat careful to state that no other human being can directly or ultimately satisfy our basic human needs. This is because we are all designed and created for these needs to be met in our relationship with God. Yet our first forebears skewed our capacity for our needs to be met in this relationship with our Creator when their rebellion embedded into our ‘spiritual DNA’ the seeds of human brokenness that necessitated the Creator becoming our Law Giver to protect us against ourselves. This is why God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to the world as The Atonement for all human beings who turn to Him and receive His Lordship and forgiveness. 

Many sexually broken people (those who have pursued the practice of sexualising their relationships in the hope of having their needs met) have come to the end of themselves, and from the darkness of their sadness, loneliness, and rejection, have turned to Jesus and begun to find the wellness, security, acceptance and love that they had always craved. For most of these people the consequences of their brokenness has meant that they will then struggle for the rest of their lives with inappropriate sexual desires (this is not restricted simply to those with same-sex attraction of course). Acclaimed Christians, like Henri Nouwen (1932-1996, pictured right), lived with this struggle for all of their lives. It is an extremely important distinction to make that attraction and action are not the same and do not have to follow.

Struggle is often the fight we fight to do what’s right. When it comes to matters like these, not struggling in the guise of being who I really am has simply not worked for many broken people. Despite the aspirations that many advocates have held for same-sex marriage legislation alleviating the pain of those who are several hundred percent more likely to suffer from depression and its consequences, the data is pretty overwhelming: it hasn’t. 

To those in the LGBTQ communities, we, the Church, are not your enemies. We want for you what you want to the core of your soul - to be well body/mind/soul, to experience acceptance, to know love, and to discover true meaning for your life. We are not being bigots when we also say that same-sex marriage will not deliver you these needs. It has not. It can not. But there is Someone who can.

Pastor Andrew Corbett, 4th March 2016

Pastor of Legana Christian Church, Tasmania

WHAT MOST IN THE MEDIA DON'T KNOW ABOUT MARRIAGE

I've been Marriage Celebrant for over two decades. I've also been married for nearly three decades. I understand about marriage - both legally, and emotionally. When I hear the 'arguments' put forward for redefining marriage I find it frustrating that what is often just sound-bites and slogans goes almost completely unchallenged by those in the media. Here's some things that most in Media do not know about marriage.

WHAT PROPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WANT. . .

Proponents of Same Sex Marriage (“SSM”) are passionate about equality, tolerance and respect for all people. They are deeply hurt by the attitudes of others who are too often unkind toward them. Sometimes those who defend the institution of marriage as exclusively being the union of a man and woman, do so in an ungracious and aggressive manner.

Legislatively redefining marriage to encompass same-sex couples is also a powerful statement that is hoped to bring a sense of validation and endorsement to those who currently feel deprived of this. In this sense, SSM is as much a statement of our society’s value of equality, tolerance, fairness, non-discrimination, and inclusiveness. In fact, arguably, this is actually what SSM is fundamentally about. And because any decent, civilised society is so – because those values are at their core – it sounds hateful, intolerant, and bigoted, if anyone in that society opposes this highly symbolic legislative statement!

THE INTENT OF MARRIAGE. . .
But the Institution of Marriage was never intended to be a symbolic ambassador for any political agenda. Neither was it meant to be a government’s – or even a society’s – endorsement of a couple. The government has no interest in its citizens’ various social partnerships – none! You can form a partnership with a fishing buddy, a tennis doubles partner, a car-pooling colleague, and the government has no interest. But when two people intend to form an exclusive, life-long union with the aim of having and/or raising children, the government and society has learned that it must take an interest. This type of union must have individuals (not couples, for the Marriage Act can only apply to individuals) comply with the Act’s five criteria in order for the marriage to proceed (The five criteria necessary for proceeding with a marriage are summed up in the acronym, GRAPE -Gender, Relationship, Age, Person, Eligibility). This interest is designed to protect those who are historically the most vulnerable to abuse – women and children – and this is one of the two reasons why Governments have any interest in regulating marriage in the first place. And in doing so, Legislators did not have to define marriage – they simply describedit and reflected what is the case in reality, that as a group, as a rule, and by nature, it requires the literal wedding (a biological term – not a ceremonial term) of a man and a woman for a child to result. And all the social data states that a child is raised best when raised in a loving home by their married mother and father (cf. Children In Three Contexts in the Journal: Australian Children Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 23–31).

THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE. . .
An essential social ingredient in this parenting union has long been observed: that this union provide that highest form of emotional security for each other and their children whom they birth and raise. This union derives its maximum effectiveness when the individuals entering into the marriage union do so voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others, for life, with a view to having and/or raising their children. This is not so much the definition of marriage as it is the description of marriage. Thus, marriage does not submit to redefinition – in much the same way that a shape doesn’t either. A circle is not a circle because it has been defined that way. Things like circles are best described rather than vainly attempting to arbitrarily define them. Any effort to redefine what a circle should now be is completely disregarded by the circle. Marriage is something. It does not invite redefining.

CONCERNS INDIVIDUALS NOT COUPLES. . .
Marriage doesn’t grant anything to couples – rather, it requires something of individualsand these requirements are applied equally, fairly, and justly, to every individual (irregardless of gender or orientation). Marriage is not the privilege granted to lovers. Two individuals can love each other without the regulatory consent of Government. In fact, there is no mention of love being a pre-requisite for marriage in the Marriage Act (although love is usually the vowed subsequent responsibility of those who marry). The idea that just because two people love each other they should be allowed to marry and similarly to forbid them this “right”, is to “treat certain people unfairly” is a furphy of enormous magnitude – because this is neither the criteria now, nor even the existing rightof a man and woman who do. This argument for SSM is a classic ‘Straw-man’ argument.

We want everyone in our society to be treated fairly, equally, and appropriately and not to be subjected to hate or spiteful intolerance. But politicising marriage and treating it as political tokenism is not the means to this end. We do not need to endorse the politicising of marriage in this way for these values to be demonstrated in our society.

Dr. Andrew Corbett
Legana, Tasmania