Updates to earlier posts on Christian Marriage. Documents are appearing from across the church denominations indicating a unity and unanimity that is both remarkable and unique. Let us be looking for the hand of the Father, the face of Christ, and the wisdom of the Spirit emerging above the surface level controversy.
Prior Articles
This post provides a further update on three earlier posts about Christian Marriage:
- Christian Marriage
State of Freedom? Since superceded by State of Freedom: Update #1.
New Links
I may not post on this topic again on this blog – depending on the proposed legislation regarding communication to apply to the postal survey. Do date, I have relied upon such freedoms as are protected generally.
Church & Christian Leaders
- Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge issued a Pastoral Letter and a Media Release
Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher
Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Christopher Prowse
Rector, St Ignatius’ College Riverview, Fr Ross Jones
Parliamentarians
- Andrew Hastie has highlighted that it is not just Commonwealth legislation and administrative bodies that will be impacted, but also State legislation and administrative bodies.
Professionals
International Human Rights bodies indicate that defining Marriage as between male and female is not evidence of inequality
Lawyers are disagreeing with their representative bodies
Observations
Different beliefs may act one way
Some christians may believe that we can put protections in place later. However, attempting to legislate for the freedoms directly (for example via bills or charters of rights) will also be counterproductive, as such legislation changes the way our courts and parliament interact in ways that are even more harmful to our freedoms. So an approach to this issue that says, “we can put in the protections later,” is really not an option.
Some may believe a laissez-faire approach is best, so that we do not coerce others in our society. Unfortunately, this is not an option either, because it will result in reverse coercion being imposed upon us.
Some may believe that voting yes will increase the speed with which the Lord brings his day of judgement and the end of all things. Fortunately, 2 Peter 3:9 (in its full context) tells us it is not the increase of wickedness that hastens the final day of judgement. That day is, in fact, being delayed by the patience of the Lord waiting for all to be given an opportunity to repent (through hearing the good news). So this option does not align us with the grace and mercy and compassion of God.
Integrating complex beliefs, values and actions
Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, man, what is good; and what does JHVH require of you, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
This is a societal issue that will challenge us to walk not only in one, but in all three of these beliefs and values. In the past, it is entirely possible we have walked in a powerful relationship with the governing authorities and forsaken mercy while over-zealously pursuing justice through legislation. Now we are facing demands that we express a singular value of mercy in a manner of other’s choosing, not our own. It will take all of our humility to act justly and to express mercy, grace and compassion in a manner of our own choosing, for the common good of our civil society into the future. Contrary to the human wisdom of this age, it is a just and merciful response, filled with humility and respect, to vote against the proposed change.
Prayer
Isaiah 49:23 Those who hope in [the Lord] will not be disappointed.
Father, as we put our hope in you, as we seek to discern your hand at work in circumstances of great challenge, as we seek the light of the face of Christ, and as we seek the wisdom of your spirit that was present at the beginning, and will be present now and forever, let our hope for a just and merciful society not be disappointed.
You must log in to post a comment.