Tag Archives: Justice

Words, Actions, and Love

Sunday, 20th October 2019

Balliol College Chapel, University of Oxford

Balliol College Chapel, Photo by David Iliff. License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Readings: Amos 5: 4-24; Matthew 7: 12-29

For pdf version click here.

For the audio click here or on the link below (though there is a bit of an echo)

Part of my preparation for this talk was a bit unusual – it involved binge-watching Christopher Hitchens debating various religious leaders on YouTube. Hitchens, who died in 2011, was a student at Balliol graduating in PPE in 1970. He became a famous writer and polemicist, and a fierce opponent of religions. His most famous book on that subject, from 2007, was called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I certainly don’t agree with all that Hitchens said, but one thing that struck me repeatedly when reading and listening to him, was his insistence on calling out what we might politely call bovine excreta: the fatuous pomposity of some clerics, the facile nonsensical arguments of others, the defenses of the indefensible in the name of religion, and his courteous but nonetheless devastating responses to his opponents. He was not in the business of playing nice. Much like Amos in the reading we heard earlier. And, ironically, much like Jesus.

 In one debate Hitchens lashes his bishop opponent, saying “How can this church say it has any moral superiority? It has difficulty catching up with what ordinary people regard as common, moral and ethical sense.”

(Quote begins at 4.55)

Hitchens was in fact rather more mild than Jesus in his own excoriating attack on the religious leaders of his day. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus rebukes them saying, “For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.”

So the first point I have learned and want to emphasise, is that the critics of religion are often right – and those of us who have a faith, need to listen more to the best critics. They are often modern examples of the ancient Hebrew prophetic tradition of speaking truth to power. And so not only are the critics often right, they were also anticipated by the Hebrew prophets and by Jesus himself! 

If you have a faith, then all truth is God’s truth. Don’t be afraid then, of thoughtful critics and piercing questions, and where your search might lead. Our faith is meant to grow, and it doesn’t always grow by becoming stronger every step of the way. Sometimes long-held beliefs will be stripped away from us, like the pruning of a tree, making room for new growth. Life will occasionally throw shattering experiences at us, and our faith may crumble to dust for a time. But if God is real, and if God loves everyone, and I believe both are true, then God will help us in our honest searching.

 The scriptures of the various religions were usually written to paint the rulers, and the ruling classes, in the best possible light – often giving divine sanction to the existing power structures. These ancient academics knew what their patrons wanted to hear. The Jewish scriptures were unusual though, in recording the failings of their kings, and numerous instances of prophets like Amos rebuking them. In Amos, we see the prophet open, onto the rulers of Israel, what I believe Biblical scholars today technically call “a can of whoop-ass”.

 In the reading from Matthew, Jesus overturns all expectations by summing up the law and the prophets with the command to treat others as they would want to be treated; elsewhere commanding his followers to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5.44; Luke 6:27 & 35), and in the Gospel of John (John 13:34; 15:12; 15:17), summarising this simply as “love one another”. So that is the point: to love God and to love one another, to love others as we love ourselves, and to treat others as we would want to be treated. And then in the rest of the reading from Matthew, comes the kicker: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

 So Jesus is fully anticipating the hypocrisy and delusion of the kinds of religious believers that Hitchens so loathed. Notice what they focus on in their defence – “deeds of power.” Not deeds of love. Not deeds of service. They have missed the point entirely. There are two aspects to Jesus’ reply: First, that he never knew them. There was no real relationship. They weren’t doing what they were doing grounded in that relationship of love, and service, and transformation. And as a result, second, they became blinded, doers of evil, of unloving actions designed to serve their own selfish ends and their own lust for power. Jesus anticipated this. 

In the year 380, under the Emperor Theodosius I, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. In my view, this was a disaster. Wherever there is power, some people are attracted like moths to a flame. So ever since Christianity became the state religion, and probably for some time before that, we’ve had people seeking positions of power in the churches for no reason other than their love of power and control. Many were weeded out, but not enough. And so, while there were many saints and mystics and countless unsung good and faithful people, Christian history also became littered with the wreckage of broken lives from imperialism, persecution, pogroms, and institutional abuse. “‘I never knew you” Jesus says, “go away from me, you evildoers.”

The emphasis in both Amos’s and in Jesus’s words is on what we do. And that is the second point. The journey of faith is mostly about what we do, not what we think in our heads and what we say we believe. The life of faith is not primarily about intellectual assent to a set of propositions. It’s a dynamic relationship of love with the Divine that transforms us from the inside out, affecting every aspect of our lives. Jesus said in the reading “You will know them by their fruits.” The apostle James (James 2:18-19) in his New Testament letter, said “You believe that God is one; good for you. But even the demons believe that”. In other words, faith is not just intellectual agreement. James goes on: “faith apart from works is barren” (James 2:20). Or as Jesus put it in our reading today (Matthew 7:12) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.”

At the World Economic Forum in January this year, the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a stark message: “Adults keep saying: ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope.’ But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”

At the UN in New York in September Greta delivered another scathing speech saying, “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.”

Again – it is actions that matter. Not words. Just like in Amos. Just like Jesus said in Matthew.

I’ve found it intriguing that the term ‘social justice warrior’ has become a term of mockery and derision in some circles. Or the word ‘Snowflake’. The comedian John Cleese famously tweeted last year: “Yes I’ve heard this word. I think sociopaths use it in an attempt to discredit the notion of empathy” (8 July 2018)

Cleese makes an important, and profoundly biblical link here. And this is the third point I want to emphasise: that concern for justice is rooted in empathy, and sustained by love. And conversely, lack of concern for social injustice, is rooted in a failure to love.

‘Sin’ is an immensely powerful and important idea that has been distorted and trivialised. It essentially means ‘missing the mark’ – like a drunken archer. It’s been mocked and caricatured – often deservedly so, with the church’s obsession with bodily functions. But, you know, once you’re the state religion under the patronage and protection of the empire, you can’t go about challenging the imperial structures of abuse, extraction and oppression – so you have to shift your focus to something more manageable and more private, like what people do between the sheets, and controlling women’s bodies.

In essence though, ‘sin’ means acting without love – using and abusing other people, animals and the natural world as instruments for our own selfish ends. It’s that seeing others as a means to an end – a means merely to our own satisfaction – that is the essence of sin. Using others when they should be treated with love and respect and concern for their highest wellbeing. Acting without their consent. Rejecting the bond of shared humanity. Ignoring the suffering of those who can’t do anything for us. Rejecting our connection to the animals and our duty to care for them.

Christopher Hitchens and Greta Thunberg, in their different ways, both display a fierce, prophetic, fiery denunciation of sin – though neither of them would likely call it that. 

Hitchens railed against the hypocrisy of the church, the protection of abusers, the alleged war crimes of a certain US Secretary of State, and the cowardice of the West that allowed 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys to be slaughtered in Srebrenica during the Balkan wars in 1995.

More recently, Greta Thunburg thundered against the world’s disinterested leaders, wallowing lazily in denial: “You are failing us.” she said, “But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

Exactly like Amos. Enough with the insipid platitudes. Through Amos, God said, “I hate, I despise your festivals. … But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.!” (Amos 5: 21 & 24).

So it is action that matters – action rooted in and flowing from love. And love for ourselves, for other people, for all sentient beings and for the planet we live on, implies a resistance towards all that is dehumanising, oppressive, unjust, and degrading – a resistance toward all that flows from a lack of love, or what we call ‘evil’. 

In 1867 the British philosopher and political theorist John Stuart Mill said “Let not any one pacify [their] conscience by the delusion that [they] can do no harm if [they] take no part, and form no opinion. Bad [people] need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good [people] should look on and do nothing.” 

So these are not simply individualistic teachings. This is not merely about our personal private spirituality. It is about our shared humanity and our love for our fellow beings – and about the systems and structures that perpetuate abuses of power. The reading from Matthew said that Jesus inspired the crowds, who were astounded at his teaching. Why? Because, “he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” 

Jesus upturned their expectations, and blew apart their pre-conceived ideas of who God was, and who they were before God. He taught with authority. Reminding people that the scriptures and the traditions were meant to serve the people – especially the poor, the outcast, the sick, the powerless. Not the powerful, who hoarded their wealth and abused the poor. Not the pompous, with their elaborate ceremonies and festivals. In the context of a just society, and of love and concern for our fellow beings, for the powerless and the oppressed, then sure, festivals and ceremonies can be a beautiful celebration of that. But without justice; without ‘righteousness’ – things being made right; in a world groaning under oppressive, deceitful, inept, and corrupt rulers, then Amos says, their feasts and fatuous, self-congratulatory celebrations are an abomination to God. The image he uses is like a dam bursting upon them.

We who are here at Oxford now, are here at a time of immense global challenges as we humans abuse the freedom we have been given, acting in unloving and indifferent ways towards the poor and our planet. In my view, climate change is the biggest challenge. Not because we are feeling the full effects now. But because there is inertia in the system – a time lag – and so the window of opportunity to rein it in is now. But there are other issues too – like the massive inequality that sees the wealthiest 10% reap almost all of the gains since the financial crises, while the rest of the country has suffered under brutal austerity policies and public service cuts. And like the often brutal treatment of women, of people with disabilities, of people of colour, and of LGBTQI+ people all over the world.

So we have a choice as students, as visitors, and as faculty, how we respond to all this. Through it all, God is with us. Calling, drawing, seducing even. In the Islamic mystical tradition of the Sufis they speak about the fanā’ – the annihilation – the idea that we need to die before we die. It’s exactly analogous to the idea of Christian baptism – dying to our false selves and rising united with Christ, allowing ourselves to be transformed through that mystical union. It’s the annihilation of our false ego, the annihilation of our intellectual concepts about what God and life should be like, stripping us back to raw, honest, humble, being, ready to be embraced by the intoxicating, joyful, love of the Divine – that love which is the essence, the vehicle, and the goal of the journey. 

I will finish with one of my favourite poems by the Sufi master Mewlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī – better known as Rumi, who lived in the 1200s and who taught in Konya in what is now Turkey. Towards the end of the poem Rumi invokes Shams of Tabriz, who was his teacher and who represented for Rumi the love of God. I love this poem because it captures the idea that real clarity of direction and action in a suffering world comes most fully after allowing ourselves to be swept away and transformed by the intoxicating love of God. It is that Divine, healing, transformative love, that sustains us, carries us and enables us to love others. This translation is by Andrew Harvey, who was once a fellow at All-Souls:

The whole world could be choked with thorns:

A lover’s heart will stay a rose garden.

The wheel of heaven could wind to a halt:

The world of lovers will go on turning.

Even if every being grew sad, a lover’s soul

Will stay fresh, vibrant, light.

Are all the candles out? Hand them to a lover –

A lover shoots out a hundred thousand fires.

A lover may be solitary, but he is never alone.

For companion he has always the hidden Beloved.

The drunkenness of lovers comes from the soul,

And Love’s companion stays hidden in secret.

Love cannot be deceived by a hundred promises:

It knows how innumerable the ploys of seducers are.

Wherever you find a Lover on a bed of pain –

You find the Beloved right by his bedside.

Mount the stallion of Love and do not fear the path –

Love’s stallion knows the way exactly.

With one leap, Love’s horse will carry you home

However black with obstacles the way may be.

The soul of a real lover spurns all animal fodder,

Only in the wine of bliss can his soul find peace.

Through the Grace of Shams-ud-Din of Tabriz, you will possess

A heart at once drunk and supremely lucid.

 Jalal-ud-Din Rumi (1207 – 1273), as translated by Andrew Harvey (Ed.) (1997) The Essential Mystics: Selections from the World’s Great Wisdom Traditions, HarperCollins, New York, p. 159.

Thank you.

Why Christians Should Vote for Marriage Equality

The ‘No’ campaign against marriage equality in Australia’s upcoming plebiscite is a poisoned chalice for conservative Christians. The ‘No’ campaigners have misunderstood what this poll is about and they have misjudged the mood of the very people on whom their future depends. This is not a plebiscite about our personal views on marriage – it is a plebiscite about the kind of society we want to live in. Do we want a society where the human rights of minorities are protected under law? Or do we want a society where the majority gets to pick and choose which human rights minorities should have? The first is a democracy. The second is a theocracy. People of all traditions can thrive in a democracy. In the world’s theocracies, minorities are persecuted and women are subjugated.

Let me address you directly if you are a conservative Christian: I’ve been where you are. I am a straight white male and did a theology degree at a conservative college. It wasn’t until I had gay friends that my understanding began to change. But I am not going to argue that you should change your personal views on marriage. Others have done that far better than I could (e.g. here and here). You don’t have to agree with marriage equality personally. That is not what this is about. Instead I will argue that if you care about the protection of religious freedoms, and care about the persecution of Christians around the world, you should care about strengthening secular liberal democracies and so you should vote ‘Yes’ to support marriage equality.

Democracies are not built primarily on consensus and unity. We don’t all have to share the same views. Healthy democracies are instead built on agreed principles for managing non-consensus and diversity. Democracies flourish not only despite diversity, but because of it. And the best model of governance we have come up with to manage non-consensus constructively, and to protect religious freedom, is secular liberal democracy, where the rights of minorities are upheld and protected by law.

Six steps to bigotry

A common approach of the ‘No’ campaign is illustrated by an article called, without a trace of irony, ‘I oppose same-sex marriage (and no, I’m not a bigot).’ But this article and others like it, perfectly illustrate the logic of prejudice, literally pre-judging, or bigotry, in six steps:

  • Step 1. Take one particular view of ‘traditional marriage’ from one particular tradition as being paradigmatic for all (e.g. ‘biological duality for procreation’).
  • Step 2. Ignore multiple exceptions from within that tradition (e.g. polygamy) and across other cultures (polygamy, polyandry and gay marriages etc.).
  • Step 3. Argue that this particular definition should apply for all time, even in a secular democracy.
  • Step 4. Implicitly support the view of governance that the majority should be able to impose its religious views on minorities.
  • Step 5. Use the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage to pre-judge and deny the reality and validity of other forms of marriage: “It will be called marriage, but it won’t be marriage as we know it. It won’t be ‘marriage equality’: it will be an entirely new thing.” Nonsense – that is textbook bigotry: it’s not how we do it, so it’s not real.
  • Step 6. Ignore the abundant evidence that the ‘debate’ is drawing out hateful, bigoted and emotionally damaging arguments directed against LGBTI people who are some of the most isolated, vulnerable and historically marginalised and persecuted people in our societies.

Is there a more fruitful approach? I believe there is.

Our understanding of human rights is evolving

We are fundamentally discussing a question of equal recognition under the law, which has enormous practical implications for gay couples. ‘No’ campaigners say that marriage equality is not a human right, but clearly our understanding of human rights is evolving.

Previously the churches have denied the rights of non-Christians, Christians of other denominations, slaves, free African Americans, Australian indigenous people, and women – especially in leadership. In every single case those churches found themselves on the wrong side of history, and, I would argue, on the wrong side of the movement of God’s Spirit towards greater love, freedom and flourishing.

The moral authority of the churches in the wake of the child sex abuse scandals is at its lowest ebb for hundreds of years – perhaps ever. People are turning away in droves and the demographic trends for the churches in the West are catastrophic. I can think of no better way of inoculating younger people against the message of Jesus than this ‘No’ campaign. Except perhaps the child sex scandals. And the churches’ hopelessly inadequate response on climate change. And their complicity in the policies which have led to massive inequality and the slashing of aid and social services, so that the good Christian burghers in the leafy suburbs can get their tax cuts. Or the support of so many conservative Christians for Australia’s indefinite detention of genuine refugees and asylum seekers in inhumane conditions. Shall I go on?

From a secular perspective, and from the perspective of the vast majority of younger people, on whom the future of the churches depend, marriage equality is most definitely a human rights issue – and a pretty straightforward one at that. From this perspective, the conservative churches backing the ‘No’ campaign, with their moral authority already in tatters, look like reactionary troglodytes continuing their centuries old persecution of a vulnerable minority, just like the churches who supported slavery, segregation, and the denial of women’s rights, and the sooner they are swept into the dustbin of history the better. If the ‘No’ vote succeeds, and the churches have contributed to its defeat, the inevitably temporary ‘victory’ will be bitterly resented by most younger people who are already disgusted with the conservative churches’ lack of leadership on issues like climate change. So I ask you, conservative Christian: How on earth does any of that serve the cause of Christ?

The desire for same-sex marriage is not new

The one man-one woman model of marriage is certainly the most common model, and is indeed that practiced by the majority. But so what? From a secular, religiously-neutral perspective, does this make it the only possible valid expression of marriage between consenting adults? Of course not. That has never been true historically globally and it is certainly not true now. The claim that the one man-one woman model is not just the majority but the ‘universal’ view until about twenty years ago is simply false. It is also akin to arguing that women were never interested in political representation until they formally began agitating for universal suffrage in the 1800s. It can take centuries for the long-held desires of an oppressed group to finally burst through the cracks in the system into the collective consciousness. That’s what we saw with the anti-slavery campaigns. That’s what we saw with the women’s suffrage movement. That’s what we saw with the civil rights movement. And that is what we’re seeing now with LGBTI recognition. The desire for same-sex marriage is not new. It is only the legal possibility in Australia that is new.

But, but … the slippery slope!

Please. There has been some spectacular idiocy on display with people arguing that if we allow marriage equality, then people will be wanting to marry all kinds of things – pets, farm animals, trees, pandas, garden furniture perhaps. In general slippery slope arguments are extremely weak, because the simple response is that if another question arises, then we discuss it and use our judgement based on the objective evidence like mature adults. And no, this certainly does not open the gates to the marriage of children, because the rights of children are also protected by the requirements of informed consent, and we have a much greater understanding nowadays of the need for a child to be of a certain age and stage of brain development before informed consent around sexual activity or marriage is even possible. In other words, there are watertight, evidence-based arguments against child marriage, whereas there are none that would prevent marriage equality between consenting adults.

What kind of society would you want to live in if you didn’t know your position beforehand?

Let’s try a thought experiment: you get to choose the system of government you want to live under. You can choose either a secular liberal democracy where the rights of all citizens are protected under law. Or you can choose a form of government where the majority decides what rights minorities will have. Now, the kicker is that you don’t know in advance whether you’ll be in the majority or the minority. And for some added realism, let’s assume you have to choose before you’re born. You might be born a straight white able-bodied male. Or you might be born a person of colour. Or a woman. Or an LGBTI person. Or a person with a physical or mental disability. What system will you choose? Be honest.

It seems to me that if you support the ‘No’ campaign, you want the second option, where the majority decides what rights minorities will have. I hope it is clear that this is precisely the same political logic by which the rights of Christians in some Muslim majority countries are being crushed under Sharia law. That’s how theocracy works. So I have two questions for conservatives:

  • Are you so hypocritical that you would support theocratic majority-rule if you’re in the majority, but secular liberal democracy if you’re in the minority?
  • Are you so blind that you cannot see that your approach weakens the very institution of secular liberal democracy which you should be trying to strengthen globally in order to end the persecution of Christians?

The non-scriptural arguments against marriage equality are dishonest

The arguments being mustered to support a ‘No’ vote are toxic because they are fundamentally disingenuous and dishonest. They are not motivated by an objective consideration of the evidence, but by a prior conviction about what can count as a ‘real’ marriage based on particular interpretations of particular scriptures. Non-scriptural arguments are then sought and cherry-picked, however dubious their quality, to support the supposedly scriptural position. And that is precisely why the arguments in this plebiscite are so damaging.

The ‘No’ campaign, including many church leaders, are using all manner of specious arguments to support a position which does not in fact derive from those weak arguments, but is rooted instead in a particular interpretation of scripture. And in propagating those half-baked non-scriptural ‘No’ arguments, a torrent of damaging disinformation is being disgorged into the public arena and onto some of the most isolated, vulnerable and historically marginalised and persecuted people in our society. LGBTI people are being told they are damaged and deficient, that their relationships are inadequate, that they cannot be good parents, and on and on the vile, poisonous lies flow. None of this toxic nonsense is supported by objective evidence, and it should be beneath people of supposed integrity to propagate such hateful and damaging falsehoods.

Some suggestions for the ‘No’ campaign

So by all means conservatives, make the case for your traditional view of marriage – our secular liberal democracy gives you that right after all. But stick to scripture and frame your arguments as your religious beliefs. If you go further and argue that you should have the right to legislate that view, or worse, start disparaging LGBTI people and their relationships, do so knowing the incredibly damaging effect you are having on LGBTI people, on the reputation of the churches, which are increasingly seen as morally bankrupt, and on the ability of generations of Australians to hear the message of Jesus.

Please encourage all of those on the ‘No’ side to have the integrity to make their case explicitly and solely on the basis of their interpretation of the scriptures of their tradition – and for added integrity points, make it clear that there are alternative interpretations by well-respected theologians who fully support marriage equality. And please encourage your conservative compatriots not to pollute the discussion with pseudo-scientific, spurious and hateful claims about the mental health of LGBTI people, the quality of LGBTI relationships, the abilities of LGBTI couples to be good parents, or baseless claims that these relationships can’t possibly be considered a marriage by definition, simply because your tradition doesn’t recognise them. That is the very essence of bigotry.

If you’re a conservative, vote ‘Yes’

Many conservative clergy and pastors seem unable to comprehend, from within their ecclesiastical bubbles, that the moral reputation of the church in the West is in freefall – for reasons which have nothing to do with upholding the message of Jesus. The ‘No’ campaign is only accelerating that decline. It is a pointless, damaging campaign that will inevitably be lost, if not this time, then the next, simply because in a secular democracy there are no sound evidence-based reasons to deny marriage equality and an overwhelming human rights principle of equality under the law to affirm it.

If Christians acknowledge that a governance framework that protects the religious freedoms of minorities is essential to protect the churches in countries where Christians are a minority, then they should uphold and protect the principles of secular liberal democracy. And in a democracy, the human rights of all must be upheld. That is why, even if you are a conservative Christian who might personally be opposed to same-sex marriage, you should vote ‘Yes’ to support marriage equality – and do so with a clear conscience. Right now, Christian minorities around the world need non-Christians to support their human rights and to stand up for their personal and religious freedoms. One day you might too. That is how a democracy works and that is how we can flourish together.