Our newly re-elected Commonwealth Government has introduced new legislation to protect religious freedom. It is not really clear that we need it (in what ways is religious practice currently restricted?) but there are a number of stalking horses in the debate, like whether Christian schools are free to sack gay teachers, whether preachers can say strong anti-Islamic or anti-gay things in public, and whether bakers can be forced to bake gay wedding cakes. Bigger and noisier than all of these is the Israel Folau affair.
All this kind of turns up the heat on religious freedom without necessarily providing much light, so I thought I'd use the Folau business as a way in to talking about the wider question of religious freedom in Australia and how we might approach it sensibly.
First of all, by way of clearing the decks, I'd like to address the question of the relationship between Israel's pronouncement and Christianity.
For those living under a rock (or perhaps, living in parts of the world where they neither know nor care who Israel Folau is), Folau is a (former) Australian Rugby Union representative who is also a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian preacher. He was sacked by Rugby Australia (RA) this year for a social media post, a meme which said this.
RA's problem was that the message was deemed to be anti-gay, and he has already been warned over a previous social media post in which he said that gay people are destined for hell. Unfortunately, all hell has since broken loose. An alliance of conservative religious people (the Australian Christian Lobby front and centre) and right-wing media commentators (headed by Alan Jones, a former national rugby coach who loves nothing better than sinking the boot into the current leadership of the sport) has lamented that Folau's religious freedom is being contravened. A fundraiser hosted by the ACL has raised $2m towards his court action for wrongful dismissal.
The second, which he also provides in a comment on the post, is from Galatians 5:19-21.
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The lists don't match exactly, and he has added 'atheists' on his own initiative. More significantly, he exchanges Paul's 'will not inherit the Kingdom of God' for 'hell awaits you'.
He adds his own comment:
Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
It kind of sounds Christian, and the Australian Christian Lobby seems to think it is, but I disagree.
The problem begins with his equation of the kingdom of God with heaven and exclusion therefrom with hell. A cursory glance at some of Jesus' teaching on the subject tells a very different story. The Kingdom is like a mustard plant which grows from a tiny seed into a large, life-giving bush. It is like a handful of yeast leavening a loaf of bread. It is like a field in which different types of plants grow. The kingdom of God is at hand, it is among us. It is the circumstance in which God rules, whether here and now or in the future. Jesus teaches us to pray, 'Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven'. This is a very different idea from that of heaven and hell as potential future eternal destinations.
However, a much more serious problem is the concept of sin and redemption Israel presents. He portrays sin as a list of actions. People are defined by these actions - sinner or saint. In order to shift from sinner to saint one must stop doing the actions on the list, which is how he sees repentance. It's as if there is a gate to righteousness and God's favour, and in order to pass through it one must change one's behaviour. I believe this is a shallow and misleading understanding of sin and righteousness, one much more aligned with the Pharisees than with Jesus.
Jesus defines sin as a much deeper problem, of which particular behaviours are merely symptoms. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for instance, adultery is equated with lust, murder with anger. The acts of giving, prayer and fasting which we would generally see as good can also serve the purposes of evil, and they should be done in secret so that they can be freed from the desire to make a show. His conclusion, in Chapter 7, is that we should avoid judging other people, because we are habitually blinded to our own sin.
He gives a similar message in Matthew 15 in a series of comments about unclean food. He says, 'What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.' Later on, in response to his disciples asking him to explain, he says 'For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.'
The depth of this sin is at the heart of the Christian gospel of grace. Paul is very clear both that sin is universal, and that Christians are no better than anyone else. In Romans 7 he laments his own inability to do right.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
This, then, is why he needs to direct his words of warning not to 'outsiders' as a call to 'come inside', but to those who are already 'inside' in the churches in Corinth and Galatia. Acting in this way, he says, is not consistent with the kingdom of God. These are people who have repented, who have thrown in their lot with Christ, but this doesn't exempt them from needing to be warned. None of us can claim that exemption.
How, then, is one to come to Christ? Well, as I understand it, the good news (which after all is what the word 'gospel' means) is that Christ has come to us rather than the reverse. John's first letter says:
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
This is also the import of the beginning of John's gospel.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
And of course this is also the teaching of Paul in Romans 5.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
So we see that the forgiveness and inclusion in God's family comes first and everything else follows. It is as if Jesus, far from guarding the gate and only letting people in if they have 'repented', comes out of the gate himself and comes looking for us, finds us as we are and leads, even entices us in.
Of course that doesn't mean that nothing needs to change. Whatever your views on the specific question of same sex relationships (my own view here and here) in general every Christian needs to begin the hard work of addressing sin in ourselves. This is what Paul is driving at in the passages which Israel mis-applies.
For Israel's purpose the appropriate line, instead of 'hell awaits you', would be 'God loves you, forgiveness and healing await you'. Instead he presents a call for moral reform - not necessarily a bad thing, but not especially Christian, especially not when backed by the threat of hell.
Now I know I'm a wishy-washy lefty progressive Christian but the explanation of the gospel I have presented here is not particularly controversial. It is the good news I heard preached in conservative Evangelical churches throughout my youth, and which I continue to hear in more progressive circles. This is the bedrock of Christianity.
This makes it somewhat confusing when Christians earnestly opine that Israel was sacked for preaching to gospel, or for quoting the Bible, when in fact he was doing neither. I can only conclude that these things get overlooked in the heat of this latest battle in our increasingly heated culture wars.
But of course it doesn't really get us to the heart of the question, because whatever his relationship with mainstream Christianity Israel has clearly said something he strongly believes. To what extent should the expression of such a belief, however much at odds with mainstream Christianity, be protected by law? This is the subject of Part 2 in this series. (And the series continues with Part 3 and Part 4.)
All this kind of turns up the heat on religious freedom without necessarily providing much light, so I thought I'd use the Folau business as a way in to talking about the wider question of religious freedom in Australia and how we might approach it sensibly.
First of all, by way of clearing the decks, I'd like to address the question of the relationship between Israel's pronouncement and Christianity.
For those living under a rock (or perhaps, living in parts of the world where they neither know nor care who Israel Folau is), Folau is a (former) Australian Rugby Union representative who is also a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian preacher. He was sacked by Rugby Australia (RA) this year for a social media post, a meme which said this.
WARNING
Drunks
Homosexuals
Adulterers
Liars
Fornicators
Thieves
Atheists
Idolators
HELL AWAITS YOU
REPENT!
RA's problem was that the message was deemed to be anti-gay, and he has already been warned over a previous social media post in which he said that gay people are destined for hell. Unfortunately, all hell has since broken loose. An alliance of conservative religious people (the Australian Christian Lobby front and centre) and right-wing media commentators (headed by Alan Jones, a former national rugby coach who loves nothing better than sinking the boot into the current leadership of the sport) has lamented that Folau's religious freedom is being contravened. A fundraiser hosted by the ACL has raised $2m towards his court action for wrongful dismissal.
Israel's meme is a loose pastiche of two bible extracts. The first, and closest to it, is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, quoted here from the New International Version.
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The second, which he also provides in a comment on the post, is from Galatians 5:19-21.
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The lists don't match exactly, and he has added 'atheists' on his own initiative. More significantly, he exchanges Paul's 'will not inherit the Kingdom of God' for 'hell awaits you'.
He adds his own comment:
Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.
It kind of sounds Christian, and the Australian Christian Lobby seems to think it is, but I disagree.
The problem begins with his equation of the kingdom of God with heaven and exclusion therefrom with hell. A cursory glance at some of Jesus' teaching on the subject tells a very different story. The Kingdom is like a mustard plant which grows from a tiny seed into a large, life-giving bush. It is like a handful of yeast leavening a loaf of bread. It is like a field in which different types of plants grow. The kingdom of God is at hand, it is among us. It is the circumstance in which God rules, whether here and now or in the future. Jesus teaches us to pray, 'Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven'. This is a very different idea from that of heaven and hell as potential future eternal destinations.
However, a much more serious problem is the concept of sin and redemption Israel presents. He portrays sin as a list of actions. People are defined by these actions - sinner or saint. In order to shift from sinner to saint one must stop doing the actions on the list, which is how he sees repentance. It's as if there is a gate to righteousness and God's favour, and in order to pass through it one must change one's behaviour. I believe this is a shallow and misleading understanding of sin and righteousness, one much more aligned with the Pharisees than with Jesus.
Jesus defines sin as a much deeper problem, of which particular behaviours are merely symptoms. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for instance, adultery is equated with lust, murder with anger. The acts of giving, prayer and fasting which we would generally see as good can also serve the purposes of evil, and they should be done in secret so that they can be freed from the desire to make a show. His conclusion, in Chapter 7, is that we should avoid judging other people, because we are habitually blinded to our own sin.
He gives a similar message in Matthew 15 in a series of comments about unclean food. He says, 'What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.' Later on, in response to his disciples asking him to explain, he says 'For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.'
The depth of this sin is at the heart of the Christian gospel of grace. Paul is very clear both that sin is universal, and that Christians are no better than anyone else. In Romans 7 he laments his own inability to do right.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
This, then, is why he needs to direct his words of warning not to 'outsiders' as a call to 'come inside', but to those who are already 'inside' in the churches in Corinth and Galatia. Acting in this way, he says, is not consistent with the kingdom of God. These are people who have repented, who have thrown in their lot with Christ, but this doesn't exempt them from needing to be warned. None of us can claim that exemption.
How, then, is one to come to Christ? Well, as I understand it, the good news (which after all is what the word 'gospel' means) is that Christ has come to us rather than the reverse. John's first letter says:
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
This is also the import of the beginning of John's gospel.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
And of course this is also the teaching of Paul in Romans 5.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
So we see that the forgiveness and inclusion in God's family comes first and everything else follows. It is as if Jesus, far from guarding the gate and only letting people in if they have 'repented', comes out of the gate himself and comes looking for us, finds us as we are and leads, even entices us in.
Of course that doesn't mean that nothing needs to change. Whatever your views on the specific question of same sex relationships (my own view here and here) in general every Christian needs to begin the hard work of addressing sin in ourselves. This is what Paul is driving at in the passages which Israel mis-applies.
For Israel's purpose the appropriate line, instead of 'hell awaits you', would be 'God loves you, forgiveness and healing await you'. Instead he presents a call for moral reform - not necessarily a bad thing, but not especially Christian, especially not when backed by the threat of hell.
Now I know I'm a wishy-washy lefty progressive Christian but the explanation of the gospel I have presented here is not particularly controversial. It is the good news I heard preached in conservative Evangelical churches throughout my youth, and which I continue to hear in more progressive circles. This is the bedrock of Christianity.
This makes it somewhat confusing when Christians earnestly opine that Israel was sacked for preaching to gospel, or for quoting the Bible, when in fact he was doing neither. I can only conclude that these things get overlooked in the heat of this latest battle in our increasingly heated culture wars.
But of course it doesn't really get us to the heart of the question, because whatever his relationship with mainstream Christianity Israel has clearly said something he strongly believes. To what extent should the expression of such a belief, however much at odds with mainstream Christianity, be protected by law? This is the subject of Part 2 in this series. (And the series continues with Part 3 and Part 4.)
Comments