Blest to be a blessing

My friend, Dr Liz Boase, recently led a brief workshop on the themes in the Hebrew Scriptures that help us to think about Mission and Evangelism. As she was speaking, I couldn't help thinking about my own questions about what blessing is for me and how that sometimes differs from what others think should be a blessing for me.

My early experience of evangelism was that someone was just being generous and loving. However, it was not long before others started interfering with what God was doing. "Blessing" can so easily turn into judging or colonizing or fitting someone into a box that really doesn't fit.

Here are some of my notes from what Liz said about Blessing in the Hebrew Scriptures...

Blessing is complicated.
The core meaning has to do with fullness of life - sometimes linked with the blessing of children, community and prosperity, but only in terms of what they represent - being able to live life to capacity. It is about flourishing.
Sufficiency is related to fullness of life - the experience of providence allows the freedom to live in a particular way.
When people do and are how they are meant to be there is a sense of blessing unfolding. (LB, Aug 2017)

This sat well with the thinking of God's SHALOM and desire for all Creation to live into a foretaste of Heaven. This is what Ministers and Churches and Disciples seek to promote when they follow Jesus, but it can be so easy to get distracted! How often do we let go of the priority of Blessing in favour of the easier choice to judge and tell others to fit more neatly into my life and my world-view?

Liz pointed us to two helpful texts:
Christopher Wright - The Mission of God's People
James Okoye - Israel and the Nations

The Call of Abram is full of emphasis on BLESSING...
Genesis 12:1-3New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

And the encounter of Moses at Mount Sinai emphasized Covenant and knowing our story of liberation and blessing.

Exodus 19:1-8New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

God blesses US and wants us to be a blessing to others!

Weavers - Carers for Carers

My Husband was diagnosed with Stage 1 lung cancer in mid-2013. In 2015 he was diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer. It has been one helluva ride and, while I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, we have grown closer and have deepened in our relationship. Being a Lover and Wife is challenging when you are also a Provider and Carer. This is why I sought help.

We moved from Newcastle to Adelaide in January 2015. We had never lived in South Australia before, so most of our 'friends' were work-related. When Terry was diagnosed again, I knew I needed some contacts who were not work-related. I looked at possibilities for Support Groups, but most of those were for the person with Cancer, less was around for the Carers.

I found Weavers online. This is my story.

I went through a process to find the right person.

Having a Weaver as a Carer enabled me to be cared for myself. It didn't place huge obligations on me, but gave me the opportunity to be supported.

Different Carers need different things from the people who care for them. Other people need information or someone to reflect with. Sometimes I just needed to be reassured that what I thought I knew was reasonably sound. With the stress of caring, you start to question yourself, because you know you can't control the situation. Being able to reflect with someone (who had good active listening training) meant being able to check in with someone who was not being emotive.

When I talk to many of my friends, they are also having to come to terms with their love and grief or confusion about our situation. When I talk with work colleagues, they obviously think about how this may impact on our shared work. With a Weaver, there are no other vested interests other than just supporting me. It helped. It helped to keep me sane, on-track and strong.

On Women and Men and Ministry in the Uniting Church - One Women’s Response

One Women’s Response
– A response to Nancy Beach’s presentation at the UL2017 National Ministers’ conference.

The Uniting Church is Australia’s Ordination questions highlight the importance of an egalitarian approach to men and women in ministry. However, we have mistakenly assumed that this would mean a commitment to public advocacy and leadership in combatting the dehumanising rhetoric of complementarianism in the life of the Church. It was deeply disturbing to many at the recent UL2017 National Ministers’ Conference to be presented with the continuum of “Complementarianism to Egalitarianism” as reflective of the current spectrum of belief and behaviour in the Uniting Church in Australia. How far we have fallen!

This is not a criticism of the excellent presenter, Nancy Beach, who was refreshing in her well-grounded and insightful comments. It is just that 25 years ago I did not think we would need to revisit such arguments within the UCA. I thought we learnt these approaches simply to offer support, advocacy and solidarity to our ecumenically oppressed sisters-in-ministry. Alas, Nancy’s presentation was needed in a Church that is seeing women walk away from working in hostile environments.

After the well-constructed and engaging session on women and men in ministry, I asked a few people what they thought about the current climate in the UCA. Several spoke of their concern that we were sliding backward, reiterating some comments Nancy had made in her presentation. Another expressed surprise at hearing this spoken about at a National Conference, asking: ‘It seems like she hasn’t been well-briefed about our position’.

On reflection, even if Nancy was aware of ‘our doctrinal position’ of women and men being equal in ministry, she was very effectively addressing the reality that there is doctrine and then there is belief – and they do not always match up. She highlighted this with a particularly helpful example:

[paraphrased from Nancy Beach 24 Aug 2017]

When women contribute in a meeting, they tend to hold back until they are 90% sure about what they are saying, whereas men will contribute their thinking when they have a 40-50% formed idea. 

My response to that is:

YES!

And – when a woman presents a 90% formed idea to a bunch of 40-50% thinkers, they often treat it as if it is a 30% formed idea that will need their validation. This is why I believe women need to be particularly attentive to other women’s voices in meetings. They need to listen carefully to one another and reflect back what they are hearing, repeating those things that resonate, and removing the enculturated habits of men from assuming that it is a role (attached to their gender) to validate considered thinking, (sometimes with questions that show they have not bothered reading the paperwork or asking in advance). Of course, this becomes impossible when you are the only female in the meeting OR when women are trying to behave like men in order to get on (more on this later).

Aside for Executives: I have always prioritized business relationships where a 
member of a Board has sought answers to their questions when they read the 
report, in advance of the meeting. Such courtesy is to be treasured and invites a reflective relationship. When such a relationship is established, I am much more likely to seek out that Board member for further refining of emerging work. They have demonstrated how to improve work 
rather than destroy it.

I was, however, bothered by the advice that women should speak up earlier when they have less formed ideas. An alternative would be to tell some people to shut up until they have engaged their brains better. An in-between compromise, which has been around for a long time, is to invite people to toss in partly formed ideas for the group to play with respectfully.

Respectful engagement is about relational behaviour. Women are not the minority in the Uniting Church, but we can sometimes be treated as minority voices, and we often act as a passive majority. The rise of UnitingWomen and Women-in-Theology and new forms of expression are signs of the desire for a more active engagement. Such gatherings of women include welcome experiences of freedom and empowerment. They also highlight that this is no longer the expectation in our mixed gatherings.

It is difficult to discuss women and men without falling into unhelpful cultural stereotyping. When thinking about Gender, we need to critique our own world views and cultural assumptions. One way of doing this is to consider perspectives from other cultures, examining alternate values and then reconsidering our own situation, enlightened by other ways of looking at things. (Essentially, this is part of what we are doing when we do Bible study.)

Within the Uniting Church in Australia, many of our comments and assumptions about women are also Western ones. Some of the strongest women of influence and authority are from non-Western cultures. I have been privileged to learn from indigenous sisters from both patriarchal and matriarchal social systems. I have witnessed the shift in style when four female Moderators (2 Western and 2 non-Western) get together. I have experienced Executive Leadership gatherings, in Australia and overseas, with some gender balance and, more often, with minority women. These are stories our Church could learn from.

If it is appropriate to ask a Keynote Speaker to come and talk about Women and Men in Ministry at a Uniting Church National Ministers’ Conference in 2017, perhaps it will be timely in 2018 to commission a new expression of Gospel and Gender to further explore our common good?

Marriage Couples - "Developing a Theology of Marriage" Questions...

Fascinated by the comment on FB posts about passages of Scripture and what they might mean in the current conversations about marriage...
I wonder if we might be getting a bit obsessed by a few passages... i.e. Led down a path of limited reading and limited reasoning...

It seems to me, people are using the Bible to argue about sexuality and are taking 'marriage' as a given, rather than doing the harder work of developing a genuine theology of marriage and relationship. (Much of the 'Christian marriage' definition seems to be based on cultural Christianity from dominant culture settings or secular society and rebranding it, rather than on really looking at the myriad types of marriage practiced by Christians globally.)

I would argue, therefore, that it may be helpful for people who get married (whatever their situations) might be encouraged to develop a theology of marriage together. AND it may be helpful for those of us who care about scripture to get in and encourage people to read the scriptures more deeply and comprehensively... or - at least - more often.

E.g. Some questions for couples:
What parts of scripture will inform how you will live, work, play together?
What parts of scripture will guide your responses to God's calling on you?
What is God's call to you as a discipleship couple?
What models will you take for family life and household?

Developing a biblical theology of marriage - not for you, but for me

Today I read a very helpful article by Robyn Whitaker. It outlines some of the biblical passages that some people think are important when considering same-gender marriage.

What I have found most unhelpful in the debate so far is that the comments seem to be about critiquing same-gender relationships. Not all same gender relationships involve physical intimacy or sex. Not all marriages involve physical initimacy or sex either. I suspect some of the conversation is impacted by our incapacity to talk about sex. I am no different. So, I am not going to start by talking about sex. Instead, I want to talk about marriage.

Every marriage needs a conversation about how we enter into it and understand it. Because marriage involves more than one, it requires communication and negotiation about values, purposes, commitments, goals and outcomes. For people of faith, there needs to be a further conversation about whether what is being entered into has a faith basis. For people of deistic faith, there is a further question about developing a theology of marriage.

My husband and I are both in the latter category. We both believe in God and have a shared faith that commits us both to a journey of shared discipleship. We follow Jesus. We try to reflect Jesus' teachings in our lives. We try to live into the calling of being a blessing for others.

Here are some of the passages I think of as informing my theological reflections about marriage:

• Abused concubine as blessed mother (Hagar) Genesis 16 and 21    

I saw a wonderful painting by the artist, Frank Wesley, of Hagar and Ishmael. Rejected and cast-out, Hagar was punished for doing what was required of her. Abraham fell down on his responsibilities to her and their son. Sarah did not provide protection for her. Hagar's story points to the failures of Abraham and Sarah. Ordered to Go forth and multiply, they set up a permanent settlement. Both of their relationships with Hagar diminish their marriage. They (as a couple) are not a blessing to her or to Ishmael. God has mercy on Hagar and Inmael anyway. They had the opportunity to offer mercy and chose to withhold grace. This led to generations of global schism.

• Finding a wife for Isaac (Rebekah) Genesis 24

Families tend to seek marriages 'amongst their own kind'. Familial blessing or criticism of marriage is often connected with racism, classism, ethno-centrism... It challenges people's comfort zones to contemplate marrying outside of narrow expectations. There is default resistance to even talking about alternative expectations. The film, Guess who's coming to dinner, tells the story of families coming to terms with moving beyond intellectual assent to difference, to actually welcoming a marriage that moves beyond the expected.

How much of our theologising also defaults to fear of discussing 'the other'? How much may that impact on discussions about who we may or may not marry?

I was struck by this story of an arranged marriage. The values expressed prioritized family, ethnicity, culture, language and upbringing, OVER love. Rebekkah's response was connected to adventure, possibility, promise, faith and vision, OVER love.

Learning: Biblical marriage does not automatically place great value on heart-felt love as the foundation of the marriage relationship. However, there is value placed on preparation, commitment and vision.

• Jacob's wives and Concubines (Rachel, Leah, Zilpah, Bilhah) Genesis 29. 

When I first read this passage I remember the relief that Jacob had a family like mine! My grandfather had four wives and several concubines. He was faithful to all of them. There were many children and many grandchildren. There was no expectation of the two parents, two kids and labrador household. For many of us, such a household is impossible! AND - it isn't even biblical!!!

Learning: Biblical marriage includes models we do not have here. Biblical models may be abusive and illegal. They may also be acceptable for good reasons in other places. E.g.1 Ensuring there is a large enough family to ensure a workforce for surviving in a place.

• Familial destruction of marriage - withholding blessing (Dinah and Shechem) Genesis 34 and 46:15

I visited a Sunday School once when I was doing a sleepover at a friend's place. It meant that I didn't need to go to Chinese school that week. The Sunday School were "doing Joseph" - so we learnt about the colored cloak and lots of brothers.

Many years later I read about their sister. The one whose marriage they destroyed. Some translations claim she was raped. Others claim she was taken and then Shechem begged to marry her. This would have ensured her survival and future. It may also have been a loveless and abusive marriage.

Whatever the reasonings, Dinah's brothers conspire to deceive and murder, not just Shechem, but his entire tribe. It is the first biblical genocide - of people who had just committed to and covenanting with God (through circumcision). It was the missionaries murdering the new converts. The murderers justified themselves saying they were standing up for their sister, but, in fact, they sacrificed her future for their property and financial gain.

I have seen families reject brides or grooms. There are often concerns about property or financial security or possible abuse. Sometimes the families are acting in the protecting role with their loved ones. Sometimes they have self-interests that cloud other issues.

Learning: When it comes to marriage, people will make up their own reasons for supporting or rejecting marriage. It doesn't need to be logical and can be violent and emotive. Often the behaviors demonstrate how important marital assets are to a whole range of people other than the couple concerned.

• Marital abuse victims and survivors (Esther and Vashti) Esther

Both Vashti and Esther were abused in their marriages. They lived with fear and daily possibilities of rejection and violence. They lived in political marriages, where "love" was misused as a substitute term for lust.

Learning: Even in abusive or political marriages there are questions about what can be accomplished in faith. Sometimes marriage is one-sided. This is not an endorsement, but it is a reality. There are both those who benefit from and blossom in marriages AND there are those who find marriage to be oppressive, dangerous and debilitating.

• Familial rejection (no room for Mary and Joseph) Luke 2

Joseph was from the family of David from Bethlehem, so it was part of the Torah (Law) that his kin should have provided for Joseph and Mary and the new baby. They obviously didn't... because the baby was to be born "out-of-wedlock" (beyond the blessing of family)? Where is God's love in such judgmentalism?

Learning: Real families behave badly when they think they are being right or correct. Hospitality may be offered, conveying grace, or it may be withheld, conveying judgement.

• Many rooms (Divine Household) Matthew 14:2

It is just as well there are many rooms 'in my father's house' - as some of us might not like to share! The implication is that many different types of people may find their home in God. This leads us to believe that God can be inclusive, even when communities want to be exclusive.

Learning: God is generally more generous-spirited than most people!

• Marriage and in-laws (Peter's mother-in-law) Matthew 8:14

Marriage is not just about spouses. It is also about in-laws and others - be they children or friendship or relational connections. There is Jesus generously healing his disciple's mother-in-law, but the story tells us more than that. It tells us about Simon-Peter's relationship with his mother-in-law, such that she serves her son-in-law's friend AND the friend does a healing.

Learning: Biblical marriage has implied relationships attached. Marriage brings different connections that lead to more connections.

• Marriage Commitments and Future Responsibilities Matthew 22:23-33

If all marriage is off the table when it comes to heaven, we ought to ask more about what it means to be like angels? Most of us consider gender to be a key aspect of our experience of identity. Gender is not just related to sex, but is connected to how we relate, how we speak, how we dance, how we dress. Few of us can imagine being like angels. It is also something that hasn't really made it through to core beliefs for the faithful. After all, many spouses plan to be buried together. Yet, this doesn't make sense if there is no longer marriage in Heaven.

• Relational foundation of AGAPE Love and honoring/respect Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19 and 22:39 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

'Love one another' in the biblical sense is not 'know one another'. Yet there is much confusion about what biblical love (or knowledge) mean. When we think of knowing and loving someone, we think of loving them despite knowing the truth of them. Physical intimacy, however, is only a small part of truly knowing someone.

The unconditional love that is described in parts of the New Testament, does not ask for something in return.

• Marriage and provision and security (Ruth) Ruth 3

Ruth and Naomi's story highlights that whatever the 'love aspects', marriage is largely about the security and future of women, including migrants and refugees. Expect a long study to come out on this one!

• Bride and Bridegroom

The passages read at Terry's and my wedding were from Isaiah 62 and Revelation. They were featuring bride and bridegroom imagery about the relationship between God and the Church. They stand in stark contrast to the criticisms leveled at the 'faithless' who are often called prostitues for turning their attentions to other attractions, getting distracted from the true relationship that is for life and nurture.

Biblical reflection: Some marriages are about blessing, life-affirming, nurturing one another and impacting other relationships around them positively. Other marriages are more like the fickle relationships that are for use and profit, services rendered and temporary gains. Marriage should be measured and corrected with these two extremes in mind.

AND
 
There are countless more texts to list and explore. I have started with these ones because they shape me. Others will identify other texts. Between us all, we could help each other in gathering resources for exploring a biblical theology of marriage.

If people are going to discuss Christian understandings of marriage, I suggest they start to share what shapes their own experiences and understandings. What biblical stories shape your thinking?

The Safe Zone

People who thought they were 'safe' have been discovering they are not. 

They have lost their sense of security.

Fear creeps into their lives and influences their behaviours, subtlely at first.

All week I have been wrestling with world events. It has been one of the most bizarre weeks to simply be audience rather than actor. Yet, we cannot be audience, and it is unclear where and when to join the fray.

This week:

• The Australian Prime Minister talked about the possibility of (potentially nuclear) war with North Korea
• White Supremicist / Nazism surfaced as violence in Charlottesville in the USA
• Domestic terrorists struck in Barcelona
• Australia started into a campaign about Marriage Equality because we will have a non-binding postal survey, given that a proposed plebiscite has not had parliamentary support due to its expense and threat to peaceful governance in our community. (Note: the postal survey is to cost $122 million dollars, with $6 million being spent before it is determined if it is legal.)
• An Australian Senator wore a Burqa as a stunt in Parliament.

Today, a friend of a relative posted about the stunt that took place in the Australian Senate this week, where a Senator tried to Ban the Burqa. I posted this response:

Sorry [N] - as a Christian Minister I have to say that Senator Hanson was inciting hatred and violence in our society. None of the other senators were able to bring themselves to support the manner of her action. All condemned it.  

Whatever you think of the burqa, in Australia we have freedom of religion and freedom in how we dress. While I am not one for such dress, I do stand with women who choose religious attire, and I do wear clerical robes, especially when I conduct weddings, etc...
Nuns of both Catholic and Orthodox backgrounds have choices about similar garb. 

Some of the old RC ones still wear full-length habit and some of the orthodox ones wear veils. We still have that freedom. So - are you suggesting that we should all lose our freedoms or just the people you don't know personally?

It has been a helluva week!

In the midst of all this, the thing that threw me was when our unit had a blackout. Is nothing sacred? Is even my home unsafe? As I lit candles, I remembered, candles remind me of the small light that dispels all the darkness - of the small voice that comforts - of the quiet prayer that is heard by God.

Our Safe Zone is not hidden behind walls and barbed wire, but is to be found in the heart of the one who chose vulnerability and invites us to do the same. Our Safe Zone is found when we quietly wear a Safety Pin to say to others, if you need a friend I will be there. Our Safe Zone is not in dominating society and normalizing behaviours like our own, but in spreading the good news that Humanity is part of God's creation AND, for all its flaws, God continues to work for our sake.

To the many people I know (and to those I do not yet know), if you are fearful or feeling unsafe, please seek out someone, someone like me... someone who wants to help you find Safety.

Hyphenated identity - are we who we wanna be?

As someday it may happen that a pollie must be found,
We've got a little list - elections to be missed -
For citizens of other states are on disputed ground,
We've got a little list - of countries to resist...
And should a pollie find that their identity is sus,
We'll take 'em out of parliament on airport shuttle bus,
For every Aussie knows that we have registered to vote
Unless of course we came more recently upon a boat...
So gather your compatriots and check their true birthplace
To see if they are outed til the next election race.
We've got a little list - of those with whom we're pissed
So it's pointless to insist that they ever would by missed!

But aren't they all from Tonga? Silence as strategy for holding unity.

A dear friend asked me recently about attitudes among Tongan-Australian "next gen" leaders. The young adults concerned were a mix of migrants (born in Tonga), 1.5-ers (born in Tonga or other Pacific Islands, but at least partly educated in Australia or New Zealand) and 2nd Gen-ers (born here). Whe couldn't understand why they would not talk about Marriage Equity and possibilities of Same-Gender Marriage. After all, several had expressed interest privately.

It was difficult for someone like me to talk about. I have never been to Tonga, although I have many Tongan friends. What I have observed is that Tongans value their relationships with other Tongan very highly. They don't want to do things that may risk tensions or conflicts, if they can possibly avoid such things. I have learnt that there are differnt streams of Tongan church culture in Australia. They might all be from Tonga, but they are worlds apart in style, attitude and particular beliefs. Nevertheless, they work hard at being together on a regular basis.

I asked my friend how could we assume that Tongans had a single understanding of or attitude to same-gender relationships or concepts of marriage? Did we have a single view in Australia? The conversation made me realise how conditioned we have become to the token voice - the single story that is meant to represent an entire population. This is how we reduce societies to stereotypes. We struggle to imagine the cultural complexity of "the other" and cannot possibly imagine a blended existence. Perhaps this is why, as a child, people called me "mongrel".

Living in more than one culture leads hyphenated children to develop hybrid world-views. We are almost impossible to assimilate longterm. People try it for a decade or sometimes even two, but eventually hyphenated identity people tend to seek out the rest of their identity. Migrants who have both parent culture and emerging new country culture are on a continuum of attitude. They may be vacillating between understandings, swayed by experiences and relationships.

Placing relationships as a higher priority than being 'right' means avoiding situations of conflict, tension or potential disagreement, in order that the community might hold together. This may involve suppressing ideas and holding back on Truth-telling. This is seen as a wise and respectful course.

Silence does not necessarily mean assent. It does not necessarily mean there is nothing to say. Silence may be a way of avoiding shame - for self or others. Silence may seem negligent to some and the same silence may be heard as comforting to others. Sometimes, silence provides the space required for prayer and meditation. Companionable silence may be required for community discernment.

For some, silence may feel like a shutting down of real conversation. However, silence may be inevitable when there are no words that convey helpful meaning. Languages are complex. Sometimes vocabulary in one language does not exist in another. Sometimes silence is preferable to words that accuse or judge. Sometimes silence simply means - we are not ready to talk.

In the wake of Charlottesville

Seeing images of religious leaders, arm-in-arm, wearing liturgical stoles, facing off armed warriors. I question whether I have their courage, for I know what they are doing is turning their cheeks to receive the blows aimed at the marginalized. What we are witnessing is the non-violent absorbing of the hate and violence of others. Jesus Christ did it. Look where it got him!

Such violence arises from fear - fear of others - fear of those who are "not like us". Violence surfaces when people feel threatened or unsafe. Non-violence becomes a more difficult choice. Non-violence comes with the faith that in a broken and hurting world, redemption does not come by overpowering others, but by reconciliation and peace-making. Such faith comes at a cost. The cost of faith may lead to death.

Heather Heyer was martyred in the name of peace. Her final articulation to the world was in a Tweet that said, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." I am outraged by her death and the manner of her execution, mown down by a man whose justification for murder was "fear of the other". What did he fear from Heather? Peace?

Peace becomes something to be feared when it costs us our privilege. Do I have to give up something for peace and justice? How much of my life is built on a foundation of injustice? Are my clothes made of slave-labour? Does my medical treatment rely on contaminating an indigenous water supply with toxic waste? Are my children to be educated at the expense of making teacher assistants available to children with learning disabilities?

I see images of 'white supremacists' and wonder why there is so little outrage in my local community. Locally, we are busy with discussing who should or shouldn't marry. We are disinterested in someone else's 'race-problem'. We do not perceive that we have a race-problem ourselves.

I live in a land that has a history of racism. I live where we talk about a Stolen Generation, not recognising that interventionist strategies are making multiple stolen generations a reality, not just for today, but into the future. I live in a land where a Deputy Prime Minister can be mistakenly a citizen of another land and legitimate refugees are kept out-of-sight by our own Authorities on foreign soil. I see our aid budget used to sway politics and our valuing of Humanity diminished.

Surely, we cannot be participants in racist lynchings and hate-crimes? Then I see images of people standing by and saying "there is nothing I can do"... much like people have in times gone by. JEsus Christ did not say "there is nothing I can do". Jesus Christ asked that the cup of responsibility be taken away from him. Then he added, "but not my will - but yours" - and became obedient unto death.

Followers of Jesus Christ are called on to take up their cross and stand with the oppressed, marginalised and hated. Like Heather Heyer and the courageous religious leaders in Charlottesville, our outrage must not be expressed in violence, but in actions that absorb and disarm. We must stand in front of the most vulnerable with the crucified Christ, having faith in the promise of resurrection and Heaven.

Amen.

Australian Plebiscite on Marriage

What is being asked of us?

Disentangling the threads of argument and obfuscation may need a bit of work at this point. The public is being told (by some) that a Government-funded plebiscite, about whether or not we should have Same-Gender Marriage, involves a debate about Christian marriage. It does not. It is about who has access to particular legal rights in Australia. This debate is a debate for all Australians. What kinds of rights and freedoms do we expect people to enjoy in this country? Who should have access to such rights and freedoms? How do we hold rights and responsibilities together? Are civil rights determined by popular opinion or by considered wisdom? How should the future of a nation be shaped?

Religious influence?

If we were to argue for a religious view of marriage to have a determining influence on Australian law, we would be arguing that Australia is a religious state, rather than a secular nation with religious freedoms. Indeed, freedom of religion has been foundational for settlement history in places like South Australia, where Lutherans became free settlers. Likewise, among the earliest settlers were Chinese, who were initially Confucianist or Buddhist. If Australia is to be a religous state, then some of our taxes should go to religious organizations to provide services for the state. If not, let's recognize the implied separation between Church and State.

First Nations? 

If we cast aside Colonial Christianity and Migrant Religions, we might ask what First Peoples in Australia have to say about marriage. This might invite broader conversations about kinship and complexities of relationships with people and land. None of these deep, millennia-old understandings have been considered in the current legislative approach. What we do know is that many First Peoples live together in relationships, recognized by their communities. Indeed, the Northern Territory has strong de facto recognition, precisely because of the large number of people who have chosen not to follow the colonizers' forms of marriage control.

It was ever thus. At the time of a Roman Census, many years ago, Joseph and Mary travelled to the town of David to be registered, primarily for Roman governance purposes. State controls, by legislation, have been used to manage populations. Work, housing, education, health-care, transport and social support systems are designed around those who are registered - at least, those who have the right to be registered. What happens, then, when people gather informally? What happens when we do not recognize who is present and how they relate to one another?

Invisibility is De-humanizing

In 1833, the British Empire abolished slavery. In North America, slavery was progressively abolished between the late 1700's and 1865. Abolition came at the cost of many lives and a significant Civil War. Slavery also existed in Australia. There are photographs of Aboriginal labour and Blackbirded labour (Pacific Islanders), men in chains, forced to work, establishing colonial power and economy. We don't talk about slavery in Australia. We like to think there are no sweat-shops or trafficked sex-slaves or Filippino farm-brides. As long as slaves are invisible, we can pretend they are not really there.

In the same way, we try not to name asylum-seekers. We try not to call them refugees. We avoid telling or hearing their stories. If they have names and stories, we might begin to recognize their humanity. We might begin to think we have a responsibility toward our fellow human-beings. As long as they are nameless, we can lose them from our consciousness.

Coming Out

This has been part of the "problem" recently: we have discovered people with names who can no longer be dismissed. A Prime Minister was not married to her partner - what was his name? A Senator is a mother and has a wife - surely, we cannot imagine her as a national Treasurer? Even if we can dismiss these public figures, who can seem larger than life, we cannot so easily dismiss the sister or son, next-door-neighbour, parent-of-my-child's-best-friend, work colleague or carer. We know their names. We cannot so easily forget them.

When our friends and relatives started coming out of the closet, every family "had one". We all coped. We made jokes about quiches and interior decorating and overalls. Humour, in all its tastelessness, allowed people to hide their insecurities behind a smirk and a giggle. There were, of course, real questions. Generally, these remained unasked and unaddressed, unless it was late at night in the privacy of a loungeroom over a glass of port. Such conversations were well removed from the public sphere.

Therein lies the challenge: how do we enter the public sphere? There is to be a national plebiscite. It will take the form of a non-binding postal survey, without safeguards or courtesies. Within hours of its announcement, verbal and social media abuse was normalized.

Prophesy or Perish

As a religious leader, I believe there are prophetic words that should be spoken into the nation. Prophetic words speak into a community about the consequences of certain behaviours and actions. Whenever we preach or proclaim spiritual truths to the world, we are striving to use a prophetic voice. The prophetic voice may be suggestive or influential. It seeks to speak truth and wisdom. It may, at times, come across as brutally honest. However, it is not coercive. It is not the role of the prophet to cast judgement. It is the role of the prophet to remind the community of God's Creative, Reconciling and Life-affirming characteristics AND call people to adopt holy values.

• Do no harm.

This is not a self-centred approach to avoiding any harm to yourself. This is an attitude of recognizing "the other" and taking into account whether they may be harmed by your action or inaction. Allowing harm to take place leads to our own diminishment. We become less human as we de-humanize others.

• Do not judge (Do unto others as you would have them do to you) 

Human-beings do not get to play God. We do get to be defined and redefined by God, but not by people. Each of us is accountable for our following of God's ways. God takes that seriously enough and doesn't really need us to act as judges.

• Seek blessing - for yourself and others

Blessing means to call the best out of. God seeks to bless Creation (including us and others). God works toward blessing. This started with creation, continued with the reconciling work of Jesus Christ and goes on through the Spirit. Calling the best out of others involves getting to know and love them, praying for them and seeking God's light to shine upon them.

Prophetic work acts like a wildcard because we don't control God's activity. Rather, we wait upon whatever God sees fit to inspire and actuate. Recognizing God's activity as being beyond the control of Humanity challenges the idea that Church can ever really serve the State without running into a conflict of interests.


Let's get out of being agents of the State!

I argued the same case in 2001 when a UCA Minister "illegally' married two people in Villawood Detention Centre and I was Carer for the young wife during her pregnancy.

1. Civil law about marriage is most certainly not Christian.
2. Church involvement in state legalities is dangerous and gives a false bias toward the concept of religion and state being together on other things.
3. We should not be involved when we do not agree with the state AND we should be able to offer full religious rites when church and state disagree too.
4. If religion and secular state are to be independent of one another, different religions may be free to recognise polygamy (as Anglicans do in Sudan and Buddhists do in parts of Asia) and they may choose to accept or reject interfaith marriages based on the kinds of vows and covenants that take place (as happens in Indonesia).
Some religious groups will choose to narrow who they bless by gender identification or sexual orientation. Some may struggle with the challenge to better understand their own community needs, where many of our groups have third gender or designated gendering.

Space for Grace
 
"Space for Grace" provides a method for community discernment. It was developed over several years among culturally and linguistically diverse leaders, seeking to find ways to stay in community relationships, despite different backgrounds and world-views.  
 
The concept of "Space 4 Grace" is:
1. Establish a common discipline of creating a "grace margin" that may take us beyond our normal boundaries of safety - this can be done with a trusted facilitator who assists in holding people to respectful behaviours
2. Form community of respectful listening, using mutual invitations to speak - allow room to listen - don't deconstruct as if stories can be treated objectively - accept that they are subjective
3. Identify themes in common and of differences to be further explored
4. Break bread together, covenanting to keep each other's stories as sacred
5. Continue to research together (beyond the initial subjective stories) - identify what can help people to pursue discernment while still maintaining respect
... after that, groups usually get imaginative about what they might do next. Several groups I have worked with have entered into relational covenants and made commitments about what kind of relationships they can continue to pursue.

In the early "Space 4 Grace" conversations about a Christian Theology of Marriage, a very diverse group identified a range of issues to be explored:
- cultural expectations
- gender roles in different contexts
- parental responsibilities within marriages (and how this is impacted when marriages are broken)
- unfaithfulness and adultery
- abuse within marriage and when is divorce needed
- third gender and marriage
- age of people marrying
- who decides who marries whom (including arranged marriages) and who gives permission or blessing
- responsibilities related to aging parents, in-laws, etc
- property
- betrothal
- family implications (including stepchildren)
- is marriage between two people or two communities/families
- marriages involving transgender or ambiguous gender identity
- same gender family implications

Many of the stories shared were from people who came from countries where civil marriage was then followed by religious rites or ceremonies or blessings - e.g. Indonesia.
Indeed, the GKI Church in Indonesia had a very big conference about Same Gender Marriage a few years ago.

None of those conversations were about shutting down conversations about civil marriage.

Secular and Religious Marriage

I lived in France between 1987 and 1990, studying and working as a classical singer, mostly in opera and oratorio.

During that time, and in Australia in the years before and after, I did what classical singers do - I sang at countless weddings. In Australia, this tends to be during the "Signing of the Register", something I always thought of as the Singing through the Signing! In Australia, this is when the Celebrant (religious or civil) coordinates the signatures of the people being married and their witnesses, and then fills in the paperwork as the presiding approved and authorized person. Singing at the wedding, in Australia, is about being the 'fill' during the legal (and boring) bit.

People come to witness vows and pray for couples. People come to lend their presence as supportive and celebratory community. People participate in an act of Blessing and encouragement. People are less interested in the paperwork.

In France, there are usually two ceremonies. One takes place at the Church or in a garden. The other takes place at the Marie (Town Hall). Often, they can be on different days. I have gone with couples to the Marie or, in Australia, to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Office. It is usually a short and solemn ceremony. The civil authority (a person) does a professional and calm, reasonably tasteful job. The event feels like it has the same kind of significance as signing a Will or Exchanging Property Contracts. Indeed, the main ramifications are about property ownership and legal rights about such property.

At religious marriage ceremonies, something else happens. The venue often holds more people. Less focus is on the legal contract in favour of signs, symbols, actions and speech about responsibilities, feelings, commitments, concerns, joys, behaviours... (just to name a few). Religious rites are not held simply in front of human witnesses, but invoke holy, sacred and divine expectations. There is a sense that the 'beyond' intersects with a 'life moment'. Somehow, there is a sense of deep significance. There are existential questions and concerns about: Why are we here? Are we seeking life's purpose? What will partnership and companionship mean within the Life Journey? These are more than legal concerns. These are about more than property.

Within the Australian community today, the concept of religious marriage and sacred union has wafted away, almost beyond reach. It has disappeared, along with the sense of vocation. Just as ministry has been reduced to the jobs and tasks ministers do, marriage has been reduced to arguments about rights, rather than holy relationships.

My husband and I treat our marriage as a sacrament. Yes, we are in love, but our marriage is more than being about us. We both love God and try to honour God in our marriage. We live out our marriage as a sacrament (sacred moment within eternity) that offers grace to others, including family and friends. Our marriage is about hospitality and good news for others. We seek to live out our marriage as a sign of the good news God has for all.

At the moment, we are staying with a delightful couple I had the privilege of blessing in a religious ceremony last year. They were legally married in New Zealand and their friends and family gathered in Australia so that all could witness their testimony to one another and to God. They live their lives hospitably, caring for others vocationally, and supporting one another in lifelong love. They contribute to their wider communities, with significant expertise, in healthcare. Theirs is the kind of marriage that forms the building blocks for a healthy community.

It grieves me deeply that we argue about basic civil rights for people. We have made a political sport out of dehumanizing anyone who could be vulnerable to our barbs. Such dehumanizing inevitably leads to the diminishment of God's Creation. That anyone could use speech or action to dehumanize others in the name of Christ sounds to me like blasphemy. My prayer is that we can all learn to live into the calling to extend grace rather than judgment, encouragement rather than criticism, blessing rather than indifference.

Baptism - Baby noises

Being the Choir Director was very different to being the Youth Worker in my Congregation. I saw things with different eyes. As the Choir Director, I ensured there was a beautiful blessing, sung with gusto and delicacy, preferably not being sung as a battle-cry, but as more of a lullaby. As the Youth Worker, the Battle-cry seemed more apt. As the Choir Director, I focused on blessing. As the Youth Worker, I focused on the serious task of discipleship. Our focus, as a congregation, I reasoned, was to bring this new person to our version of fullness of faith and life in Christ.

The term "Blessing" is meant to convey bringing the best out of. Yet, often, we think of Blessing as a gift to bestow. We have it. You don't. We will generously and magnanimously give you this gift. We will make a big deal of our sacrifice and generosity. You will be humbled and grateful for the joy we enable for you.

We have the goal of building the Kingdom. To do this, we will build the Church - make it stronger. We are the bearers of this capacity. We represent salvation. We will bring our energies to bear on your poor unformed spirit. We will shape you. This is called Formation.

Where did I lose the sense of blessing as a gentle ministry? When did I forget about unconditional love? When did I begin to believe the Church was the answer? When did I forget about God, revealed in Jesus Christ, and made present in peoples' lives (collective plural intentional) by the Spirit of Jesus Christ?

I recollect learning the distinction between baptisms of infants from 'outside' and baptisms of infants from 'our own'. The visitor baptisms were a service we provided, out of our sense of bestowing grace. The home-grown baptisms were an affirmation of our own faith and righteousness as a community. We treated the external baptisms as mission outreach. We treated internal ones as fruit.

As a Youth Worker, I learnt to be critical of the outsiders. I began to focus on what discipling tools I could provide so that those from outside could be properly indoctrinated with out culture and world view. I created send-home packs and made visits to outsiders, determined to bring them into the fold. I did not worry so much about those from inside. They were saved. I was not so sure about the outsiders.

In my arrogance, I was sure God's work and effectiveness was limited by me.

In the eyes of the Church, I was an effective agent of God... much to my shame and the shame of the Church!

Later, I would be involved in the development of and co-teach a course on Understanding the Sacraments. We asked students to reflect on the meaning of their own baptism. As a teacher, I was committed to only asking students to do those things I was willing to do myself. When I wrote my assignment, I spent the next few months unpacking it in Supervision sessions with my Mentor.

I was baptized as an infant by a Church, presented by non-believing parents, so that one day I would be able to get a good education by attending a Church School that required students to have been baptized. My parents had no intention of my becoming a 'believer'. Nevertheless, I was evangelized at school by another student, Anna. Around the time I became a Christian, I was disowned by my Atheist-Buddhist-Aussie-Chinese parents.

Persecuted for belief, my faith grew stronger. (What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.) Teachers and other students took my pastoral care on and people loved me into God's grace. The fulfillment of Baptism came at the generous sacrifice of many, from many different church communities, over many years.

In supervision, I reflected, infant baptism invovles:

• Faith - that God is at work in the bigger picture
• Commitment - to nurture the baptized, even if they dont turn back up for many years
• Still Being Around - for all the life transitional moments to come
• Long-term Societal work - being in schools, community organizations, community events, public places

Don't get me wrong! I delight in baptizing believers, adults, people who profess justification by their faith. I have just come to think that the criticisms aimed against infant baptism represent the laziness of Christian communities who have forgotten that missional work requires generational commitment.

Are we so captured by perceptions of parents and control issues, that we believe God's love will be stopped as we judge the failings of family attendance at "our church"? In the Wesleyan tradition, the baptismal liturgy has the baptism taking place BEFORE any promises are made. This is because Methodists hold to an understanding that God blesses before we can even respond. We only love because God first loves us. Whether infant or adult baptism, whether it is someone who can articulate their faith or someone who cannot, we baptize BEFORE any testimony of faith is given. The testimony of faith may come immediately after tha baptism or it may come many years later. If we faithfully pray for someone at their baptism, do we not believe that we are praying for God's will that this Child of God may one day declare God's praises?

When I baptize a child, I do not know whether they will declare faith within my lifetime. Of course, there is more likelihood that their declaration of faith may be encouraged by believing parents, but, a person's faith is not just that of their parents, either. If an adult is baptized today and seeks a more meaningful baptism in 2 or 5 years time, how much of this is about how they 'feel' rather than the testimony to what God has done. I happen to believe that the sacrament of Baptism is about us all testifying to God's work, not our own. By all means, affirm and testify to faith through a reaffirmation of Baptism, but do not belittle what God has been doing, continues to do and will do through eternity.

Jesus Christ's love remaines constant - even when we do not recognize it. Jesus does not need to be recrucified, so tell the story of Baptism, but do not make it any less than the miracle it represents and points toward - the love of God - from before we even know or acknowledge - right through - forever and ever. AMEN.