RELEVANCE INTACT: The Tasmanian Church's Place

NOTE: This is a critical review of Barry Prismal’s Sunday Examiner Opinion piece published Sunday August 29th 2022, which complies with Section 41 of The Australian Copyright Act 1968 which states: Division 3—Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in works, 41  Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review – A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made. The Australian Copyright Council has advised: “criticism and review involves making a judgment of.the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas.” Therefore, you can use either the whole work(if it is needed) or a part of it for criticism or review.

Tasmanian churches play a vital role in our state as a moral compass and social leader. Our moral compass was given to us 2,000 years ago by Christ when He then commissioned the Church to preach, teach, and care in His Name. The Church’s role as a social leader was thus modelled and instigated by Jesus who had embraced the shunned, condemned oppressors of the vulnerable, and upheld the sacredness of every human life and taught His followers to do likewise. 

Two thousand years later, Tasmanian churches continue to gather weekly and proclaim the good news (“the gospel”) which Jesus taught; to care for the poor and homeless, feed the hungry, welcome refugees, and provide thousands of young Tasmanians with an education. This is why the former Examiner deputy editor in recently described the Tasmanian Church as “the most fundamental pillar in society.” But, then he went on to describe it as being led by “a pious clique of fancy robed hypocrites, with less and less relevance each year to the wider community” (28/8/2022). The basis for his sharp criticism of the Tasmanian church is grounded in his assessment that it has not recalibrated its moral compass to align itself with culture’s progressive values. Here’s why I take issue with the esteemed former deputy editor’s assessment.

¶ “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you,
for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
Luke 6:26

I know many of the pastors who serve across our state. These men and women are my colleagues. They serve tirelessly and gladly for very little recognition—but recognition or acclaim is not their motive. Their week-in-week-out efforts in preaching uplifting messages of hope makes a valuable contribution to the social capital and mental health of our state – let alone their efforts in weekly food and relief distributions, emergency and crisis housing, hospital visitation, marriage and family counselling, and overseeing after-school care programs. These are the areas where the best efforts of the church are mostly expended with nearly all of the necessary funding coming from the voluntary donations of those in their church communities.

And He will place the sheep on His right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me.’
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see You a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe You? And when did we see You sick or in prison and visit you?’
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to Me.’
Matthew 25:33-40

Collaboratively the churches of Tasmania are working together to address some of Tasmania’s social ills such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, and toxic masculinity resulting in violence against women. This involves the UPSTREAM Initiative, the development of the ARK Children’s and Youth Respite Centre in Launceston (for young people traumatised by domestic violence), and several drug rehabilitation centres such as Missiondale. For several years now the Tasmanian church has played an active role in providing and supporting several women’s shelters under the auspices of Anglicare, Catholic Care, Baptcare, to name a few.

While the church in Tasmania continues to address Tasmania’s most urgent social issues, as mentioned above — and does so relatively quietly — it is often only heard and seen in the public square when it is responding ethical challenges. That is, when the church is put on the defensive. Mr Prismall begins his conclusion about why the church is no longer relevant in Tasmania by stating, “A stronger church should not compromise on its theology. It’s a perennial strength people look to.” Here is where Mr. Prismall and I agree!

But it strikes me from his list of criticisms and his clear unawareness of all that the Tasmanian church continues to do to address the spiritual, social, ethical and cultural malaise of our state, that he reveals that he does not understand that when we speak up on matters of sex, gender, and marriage, we are doing so on the basis of both Christ’s teaching and His foundational commission for us to do so!

Jesus Christ made it very clear that it was He and His Father who created the original human pair (Matt. 19:4; Jn. 1:3), and it was He and His Father who designed and established the boundaries for human sexuality and it was He and His Father who instituted marriage as the lifelong, self-sacrificing, commitment between a husband and his wife (Matt. 19:4-6). Jesus Christ gave grave warnings about sexual immorality and its eternal consequences for a human soul (Matt. 15:19). 

 on earth has been given to Me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20, Christ’s “Great Commission to His Church”

To uphold the teaching of Jesus and to be obedient to His commission for us, is not, as Mr Prismall suggests, the Tasmanian church deviating from its rich theology, it’s upholding its rich theology! In fact, it was the efforts of the early church in proclaiming the sanctity and sex and marriage that revolutionised how men behaved and women were treated, as the late sociologist, Professor Rodney Stark pointed out in his landmark book, The Rise of Christianity.

I also share Mr. Prismall’s disgust for those who takes their ordination vows ‘cynically’ and instead of serving as protectors of the vulnerable they turn out to be evil predators. During the Royal Commission into the Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse of Children, established in January 11th, 2013, I read each of the reports as they were published. This was a heart-breaking exercise. 

But Mr Prismall has asserted that this level of abuse is continuing within Tasmanian churches. He also asserted that every denomination is equally still culpable. This is factually incorrect on both counts. I consider the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Tasmania a close friend. I also consider the Archbishop of the Catholic Church a close friend. What Mr Prismall may not be aware of is that when Bishop Condie arrived in Tasmania and was installed, he made a very public commitment to make full restitution to any victim of sexual abuse by the predatory behaviour of an Anglican priest or teacher – even if it meant that the Anglican church in Tasmania risked going into bankruptcy! The very thing that Mr Prismall has called the church to return to is the very thing that Bishop Condie has done over the past five years or so! And I can say the same thing about the Catholic Church in Tasmania under the also relatively recent appointed Archbishop Porteous.

¶ “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin,
it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck
and he were thrown into the sea.
The words of Jesus warning against anyone who harms a child who follows Christ, Mark 9:42

Closer to home for our church, when we had outgrown our previous church building and were preparing our existing auditorium, we deliberately designed it to be as transparent as possible enabling anyone outside to be able to look through its large windows, or to go online and watch was happening live on our website, YouTube, and/or Facebook. We also installed security cameras throughout our facilities to ensure there were no ‘hidden’ places where a vulnerable child could be at risk. 

Mr. Prismall makes much of the census figures showing that the number of Christians in Tasmania has declined by 10% since the last census. What the census doesn’t reveal though is that the sector of the church that has suffered the greatest decline are the very churches who have done precisely what Mr Prismall has called for! That is, the very churches who have recalibrated their moral compass and endorsed the euphemistically called “marriage equality” and “non-binary-genderism” and “terminating the unborn” – are the churches that have lost members in “droves”.

When Mr. Prismall says, “I’ve heard so-called believers demonising gays and transgendered people as it they’re social lepers, who should be avoided like the plague” – he may have – and he also may be correct in his assessment that they were not really Christians. But I do wonder if he has interpretted disagreement with hatred? On a side note, his metaphors – social lepers and the plague – are curious terms since it was the early Christians who embraced lepers and established a long tradition of care for lepers, and it was the early Christians who stayed in the midst of the plagues to care for the sick and the dying.

The Christian Church has always had uphill battles to fight. Christ warned His original disciples that the populace would treat them just as the populace was treating Him (Lk. 21:17; Jn. 15:18; 16:2). Ultimately the crowd’s hatred of Jesus (Jn. 8:37; 19:18) led them cry for His death – which the Romans were happy to oblige with (Jn. 7:1, 17; 19:16). Despite the constant uphill battles that the Christian church has had to deal with, by the power of the promised Holy Spirit it has more battles than it has lost – even when it has endured persecution, martyrdom, and banning (as it is currently in fifty countries around the world).  And I’m reasonably confident the Tasmanian church will also win more battles than it will lose as it marches on uphill into the centuries to come.

Your Pastor,

Andrew

Let me know what you think below in the comment section and feel free to share this someone who might benefit from this Pastor’s Desk.

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

The Real Issues Of The 2016 Australian Federal Election!

The Real Issues Of The 2016 Australian Federal Election!

“Lewis believed democracy to be the best form of government, not because men are so good they should share in government but because fallen men are so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.”
C. S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith: Defender of the Faith, Richard B. Cunningham 

C.S. Lewis also once famously said that democracy is not the best form of government – but it’s the best one we have! In Australia we have been enduring an election campaign that has gone on for nearly eight weeks, which is a little unusual for Australia. But spare a thought for our American cousins who have had what appears to be an election circus going on for months now and still has months to go! On Saturday July 2, Australian voters go to the Polls and whatever the outcome, it will have huge ramifications for our future and be a temperature-taking moment for where Australian sentiments currently lie.

I, like many others, attended the local ACL candidate forum where each of the main parties had a representative sharing and defending their views. I was upset and disturbed by most of what I heard. From the outset, I need to state that I am not a member of a political party (nor have I been). Thus, my comments are not beholden to any Party’s agenda. There’s three broad categories of concerns that deeply trouble me about this current election and the political climate. These are-

(i) What each of the Parties claim are the main issues for the Federal Government to address

(ii) How each of the Parties propose to address their idea of the main issues

(iii) What the main issues really are!

“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill, 1947

(i) What each of the Parties claim are the main issues for the Federal Government to address

The Liberal-National Party present the economy as the main issue. By ‘economy’ the Liberals mean that Government spending should not exceed Government income, foreign debt should be paid off, and the taxation system should be fair but able to provide incentives for business and industry to grow and employ more people. Their slogan is, “Back our plan for a strong new economy.” The Liberals will hold a Plebiscite on Same-Sex Marriage before the end of the year. 

The Labor Party present health and education as the main issue. They have majored on the preservation of Medicare as a key issue. Their 2016 slogan is, “We’ll put people first.” Many of their ads have highlighted the Liberal Government’s spending cuts to health and education and their intention to restore this funding. Labor has promised to introduce Same-Sex Marriage within the first one hundred days of their election to government.  

The Greens Party present the climate and fairness as the main issues. Their slogan is Standing up for what matters. They want to promote renewable energy which will contribute to the reduction of Global Warming, and they want to end off-shore asylum-seeker detention. Their taxation policy includes increasing the company tax rate. The Greens are committed to introducing Same-Sex Marriage.   

.

(ii) How each of the Parties propose to address their idea of the main issues

The Liberal-National Party claim that they will bring the Federal Budget back into surplus and eliminate the national debt. They claim this can be done without increasing taxation and by curtailing Government spending. The Liberals claim that Australia’s national debt costs fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) a year in interest. If this debt could be eliminated, it is claimed that it would allow for increased spending on such things as health and education. 

The Labor Party claim that they will bring the Federal Budget back into surplus and eliminate the national debt within ten years. They also claim that they can increase spending on health and education. 

The Greens Party claim that Federal Budget deficits serve the national interest because they ensure that essential services can be provided for. The Greens want to introduce a Carbon Tax and incentives to transition to renewable energy. They would also close all detention centres and increase refugee/asylum-seeker intakes.

*I apologise to all the other Political Parties for not including a summary of their positions.

.

  (iii) What the main issues really are!

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
Proverbs 14:34

It seems to me that each of the Parties have identified at least some of the important issues facing Australia, but have, perhaps, failed to recognise the preeminent ones. 

THE ROLE OF ANY GOVERNMENT
The role of Government is to uphold justice, promote the welfare of its citizens, provide common defence, and maintain the blessings of liberty. But it seems that we have come to expect a lot more from our governments today. I am surprised by how the question, “What is the government going to do about this?” is applied today. For example: education. But I’m not nearly as surprised by politicians who make commitments to do things on behalf of a government that were never considered the role of government – such as: ‘middle-class’ or ‘corporate’ welfare, introducing ‘taking offence’ laws – and no-one seems to question this very idea! 

THE TWO MOST PRESSING ISSUES
On two occasions throughout this 2016 Federal election campaign did two of the most pressing issues facing Australia get a mention. As important as the economy is, these issues are infinitely more important than how wealth is created and distributed. In fact, I would like to make the case that the issue of the welfare of the vulnerable is a profound economic factor on our nation – at least because it reveals the ‘moral temperature’ of our nation. When any nation’s moral compass is distorted by the magnetism of personal interest over national interest (which is a form of immorality known as ‘Moral Relativism’) it is economically doomed! Greece is a tragic recent example of this where its citizens voted for massive Government spending increases which gave them each a pension from the age of 55 which was annually many times their final year’s salary! 

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.
Proverbs 14:12

The two moments in this election campaign when both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were caught off guard occurred when the plight of the vulnerable was exposed to the media's glare. The first instance was early in the campaigning while the second happened last week. Bill Shorten was asked a question by a 19 year-old girl in Woy Woy (NSW) about his Party’s priority regarding suicide prevention in Australia. Initially he seemed to dismiss the question as a bit of a left-field issue. He then turned to his town-hall audience and asked them if any of them had been affected by suicide. In this YouTube clip you can see how caught off guard he was with their response.

Suicide rates in Australia have risen 20% between 2004 – 2014
(source: Former Mental Health Advisory Chief Adjunct Professor John Mendoza, 2016)

In response to this moment, Mr Shorten has committed his party to trialling 12 pilot programs around Australia to address mental health and suicide. This is commendable. But unfortunately it misses a very big point. At the heart of why Australians are despairing, and consequently taking their lives, is the cultural promotion by successive governments of moral-relativism (that we each determine what is right and wrong because there is no external/objective, point of reference). The removal of objectivism (that we draw our morals and values from an Absolute Standard) from the Australian psyche by nearly all sides of politics has been subtle and largely unchallenged. It has dire consequences though.

Not only has the term secular (which has always meant ‘non-religious’) come to be synonymous with moral-relativism it has been unquestionably redefined as ‘anti-religious’. And this is what moral-relativism does: It continually redefines everything. By its very nature it has no choice but to do so – because it is not grounded in anything fixed, such as God. Rather, it is subject to personal whims. It is almost the perfect Trojan Idea-Horse of our day. Rather than aggressively invading culture with its non-sense it has instead dressed itself as a beautiful, creative, appealing, artful centre-piece of culture – just as the ancient Macedonians were able to do to the unsuspecting citizens of Troy. And like the unsuspecting Trojans, one thing inevitably leads to another and then ultimately to their greatest detriment. This is what moral-relativism will do, and can only do, to any culture!

When everything about our culture tells its citizens that there is no fixed reference point for right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, purpose or meaninglessness, is it any wonder that its most vulnerable citizens think there is no point to living?  

 The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.
John 10:10

The second moment in this campaign happened when Prime Minister Turnbull was asked by a Queensland female medical student, Ashley, about the plight of the dozens of abortion survivors who are left to die after they are born. These unwanted babies, who are aborted ‘late-term’ (after 5 months in the womb) who somehow survived these attempts to abort them are left to die as they impulsively cry for nurture.

Video Player

00:00

02:39

You don’t have to be religious to be deeply concerned about the plight of our most vulnerable citizens – those who are suicidal and those who are utterly defenceless against those who seek to take their lives. At the recent electorate candidate forum I was greatly grieved to hear the Liberal candidate say that the latter should be “safe, legal and rare”. I was upset when the Labor candidate said that it was a woman’s right. I was disappointed that the Greens candidate said it was a woman’s body and she had a right to do to it whatever she wanted. I restrained myself from asking them about the analogy of an owner of an apartment building who owned the building and its land freehold (without a mortgage), and wanted to demolish it with explosives, even though it was known that there was someone in their building at the time. Even though they owned the building, do they still have the right to demolish it even there was someone alive inside it at the time? We need to remember that a pregnant mother hosts another being who possesses distinct DNA, a distinct blood type, measurable brain-waves from ten weeks after conception, and independent movement, from its mother!

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Luke 1:41

.

Has Australia Succumbed To The Trojan Horse Of Moral-Relativism?

Moral-relativism distorts the way a culture can think clearly about issues. This is why the issue of Same-Sex Marriage is so telling.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools
Romans 1:20-22

I am flabbergasted at the ‘logic’ used to promote this radical moral-relativism. Because I understand the nature of Trojan Idea-Horses, I am far less flabbergasted than most at the response of those inside, or aligned to, the Trojan Idea-Horse when they exhibit scandalised mockery toward to those who dare stand up to it. Their ironic moral disgust toward anyone who dares believes differently to their opinion – that everyone’s opinion is equally correct – would ordinarily be labelled as illogical if it wasn’t for the fact that moral-relativism celebrates the illogical. They have cleverly brought in their moral-relativism in the form of an Idealogical Trojan Horse which has been draped with completely disconnected words such as love, equality, justice. 

Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were older than he. And when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, he burned with anger. 
¶ And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said:
“I am young in years,
and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
to declare my opinion to you.
Job 32:4-6

Like Elihu in the Book of Job, I simply expected my senior colleagues within the Church, who have impressive titles of national honour, to have pointed out the obvious and glaring flaws in such Trojan propositions before these illogical ideas could gain entrance into the centre of the Town Square. But no. I expected that someone, somewhere, with a national voice, would have pointed out that marriage is not, was not, never was, about bestowing social standing to a couple. But no-one has. I expected that someone, somewhere, with a national voice would have pointed out that love is not the reason or the prerequisite for a couple to marry (“love” does not occur anywhere in the Marriage Act). This would of course mute the appeal that if two people love each other, they should have the right to marry. Putting aside the false notion that marriage is a right, and addressing the equally absurd notion that “love” is the only criteria for marriage, why hasn’t anyone asked whether “love” will be the new and sole prerequisite for marriage with the proposed introduction of same-sex marriage? I’d be very curious how I as a Marriage Celebrant will be required to test/prove/demonstrate this criteria is met in order for a marriage to proceed. Presently, the prerequisites for marriage are clear, as any Marriage Celebrant is required to check, and include –

• Complementary Gender (everyone in Australia is treated equally by insisting that since marriage is the union of one man with one woman voluntarily entered into for life for the purpose of having or raising children where possible, it is necessary that this unique relationship necessarily be between a man and a woman)
• Appropriate Relationship (a marriage cannot be between a parent and child, or between siblings)
• Attained Age (the individuals forming the marriage union must be at least 18 years old. It would be inappropriate for 6 year olds to marry.)
• Identifiable Person (one of the final Statutory Declarations a couple signs before proceeding with their marriage has as its opening declaration, “I am a person”. A person can not marry their pet, their favourite tree, their football club, or their car.)
• Eligible Status (a person must be eligible to marry, that is, legally single and not already married)

(This mandatory criteria form the acronym, “G.R.A.P.E.”)

Added to these facts, which justly apply to every Australian equally, I expected that someone would point out that not only do these 5 criteria apply to every Australian equally, but that they can only to individuals – and never to couples. That is, marriage is not the recognition of a couple – it does not bestow status to a couple – it changes the status of an individual. If this was just pointed out, so many of the arguments for same-sex marriage – about giving same-gender couples equal recognition – would never go unchallenged, because more people would be able to immediately point out that that is not what marriage does now, and neither can it. Thus, when I hear a political candidate claim that marriage is all about “love” (when in fact it is about the commitment between a man and woman that best environs the having and/or raising of children where possible), or that it is about giving equal status to same-gendered couples (when marriage is not about the status of any couple!), and that same-sex marriage legislation is necessary to address the abnormally high mental-health issues and suicide-rates among the LGBT communities (when in fact, wherever same-sex marriage legislation has been introduced, there has been no such expected improvement and in many cases it has actually got worse). And again, sadly, no national Church leader seems to have pointed these facts out to these unqualified politicians.

The Christian’s defence of the uniqueness of marriage is not narrow-minded bigotry, or hatred toward same-sex attracted people. The ache that same-sex attracted people feel cannot be soothed by same-sex marriage (as the evidence clearly shows). Thus, the idea of Same-Sex Marriage is really a Same-Sex Mirage! The Christian agrees with Jesus Christ who defined marriage very clearly – 

He (Jesus) 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’?
Matthew 19:4-5 

If the role of government is to uphold the welfare of its citizens, it cannot in good conscience support that which harms them, which these two pressing issues clearly do. Yes, we want our government to be economically responsible and minimise wasteful spending, to tax fairly, and distribute resources to those less fortunate. But we also need the government to acknowledge that it plays a significant role in shaping our culture and its values, which in turn have a direct bearing on the welfare of people. Arguably, national interest is best served when a government supports and promotes the family unit – rather than undermining it. It would then be going a long to addressing our most critical economic and social issues including: family breakdown, divorce, domestic violence, pedophilia, teen pregnancies, homelessness, illicit drug abuse, suicide, mental-health, education, and health. This election, please consider whether the candidate you are voting for is prepared to acknowledge and address these most serious welfare issues.    

Ps. Andrew Corbett