You Old Bastard

‘G’day ya old bastard. Haven't seen ya for a while. Let me shout you one’. Very Australian,  uniquely Australian. We are the only place in the world it seems where the word ‘bastard’ can be used as a term of endearment or an expression of friendship. Mind you it can also be used to express contempt or as an insult, which is the way it is accepted almost universally.  Use it in some places and you will be lucky to escape with your life.

Why are we different?  While I attempt unsuccessfully from time to time to find anything resembling an authoritative statement that answers the question I can present one or two possible ones. These go back to the earliest days of European settlement.

White Australia started out as a penal settlement.  Of the eleven ships of the First Fleet one carried unmarried female convicts, some of whom were pregnant before leaving England and others fell pregnant on the voyage. A woman who struck a relationship with a crew member on the trip could have a more comfortable journey than her sisters.  On arrival many early convict women were forced into prostitution in order to survive.

Esther Abrahams was seventeen when she was sentenced to deportation for stealing a piece of lace. On the way out she caught the attention of Lieutenant George Johnston and became his defacto wife soon after landing in Sydney. In 1808 Johnston, by then a Major and leader of the Rum Corps, became provisional Governor for almost six months following the forced resignation of Governor Bligh. Esther acted as the Governor's wife and they went on to become one of the wealthiest couples in the colony. In 1814 they married after being together for almost 25 years and having four children.

Early governors tried to control marriage in an attempt to engineer society according to their vision. Citizens needed Government permission to marriage. An application based on the desire to legitimise a pregnancy or because of love did not meet the requirements of Government. Many couples chose to go with their hearts.

In those early days there must have been a significant number of people born out of wedlock that contributed to the building of our nation and that helped to shape our national values. People who had been kicked in the guts by the English establishment, treated harshly in their new environment, and denied the right to marry whom they chose. It seems very likely a contempt for the norms of the ‘establishment’ and the number of bastards in the colony created the environment in which being born to unmarried parents was almost a badge of honour, not a matter of shame. A society in which some could call a bastard their mate.

I hate the term ‘illegitimate child’, and I don’t find the alternate ‘love child’ much better. Children don't get any say in who their parents are or in the circumstances of their conception. Regardless of what their parents may or may not have done, every child should have a right to be loved, supported, and given the same opportunities as all others. For too many that right has been denied because they are seen as ‘illegitimate’, or ‘bastards’. There is something appealing in the thought that a bastard could be celebrated in early Australia.

Those who accept as fact the Biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth recognise Him as history’s best-known bastard. Jesus chose to be born a bastard in a culture where such a birth brought great shame on both the parents and the child. He was born a social outcast. Perhaps this fact helped Him to better understand the struggles and the suffering of His fellow outcasts (see Hebrews 2:18). Many of these who had known the sneers and condemnation of the establishment felt comfortable in His presence. There is no reason to believe those early Australians would have found Him any different.

I wonder how many of those who claim to be Christian stop to think on the fact that we worship a bastard. Jesus took upon Himself the shame of HIs birth so that others of like status need feel no shame, no guilt, no condemnation. He gives the bastards of this world value as human beings regardless of how the society in which they live see them. That should shape the way we as Christians see them.

As Australians we talk about our Aussie values. I often wonder if we stop to think about what they really are, and what it means to live by those values. Perhaps, when we slap each other on the back with a hearty ‘G’day ya old bastard’ we are reflecting one of those values. Who cares about who or what your parents are. You and I are Aussies together, and as Aussies we will stand by one another.

For anyone interested, a bit of extra reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_women_in_Australia

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/convict-women-in-port-jackson

https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-203/feature-rodney-croome/

Fear-Based Religion

Of late I have often thought of Nigel. Our only contact was Facebook. He had been at school with one of my daughters, was any army veteran and an ardent atheist. Some time in the last year or two he suicided, it seems another victim of PTSD.

I have always remembered something he said on Facebook. ‘As a kid I was dragged along to the Adventist Church on Saturday. There I heard judgement, judgement and more judgement. Then on Sunday I was dragged to the Uniting Church. There I heard hell, hell and more hellfire.’ Little wonder he was an atheist I thought. Nigel had read Dawkins and often seemed to reflect what I have read in ‘The God Delusion’. I can't recall if the statement about teaching children that they will burn in hell forever is child abuse is in that book. However it is a difficult accusation to defend.

The threat of hell has been used for centuries to get people to repent of their sins and turn to Jesus. But not by Seventh-Day Adventists. Adventists believe the idea of everlasting hellfire is alien to a true understanding of the Bible. Being deprived of this tool has not however robbed Adventist preachers and evangelists from using fear to gain conversions. The ‘Investigative Judgement’, the idea that all are judged before the return of Jesus, has been used to great effect by some to create ‘unease’. ‘Tonight, this very night, your name may be coming up in the judgement. Tonight, if you have any unconfessed sin your name may be removed forever from the Book of Life. This moment may be your last chance to be saved. If you don’t accept Jesus now you may be eternally lost.’

This is a strong appeal to the emotion, but emotions don’t last. Fortunately I heard more that was positive and found love in the Bible. Also, I was an adult and was no doubt in a better position to process what I heard than Nigel. It would be bad enough if you believed that being eternally lost meant being dead forever. But what if at the same time you still considered eternal roasting was still an option?

I cannot know what Nigel believed as a kid, but this is the stuff he heard on both Saturdays and Sundays. Hearing both he probably failed to discriminate, merging both into his picture of God. Who can blame him for wanting to block it out, to deny the possibility. 

Fear is a poor long term motivator. It may cause us to flee an immediate danger, such as a fire or a charging bull. But it is ineffective at bringing lasting change. Constant appeal to fear is known to cause people to shut out the message. Change managers recognise the need to appeal to people's desires, wants, and higher ideals.

If, as Christians believe, God is love, how can we please Him if we serve Him out of fear? Love is His ideal. He wants us to love one another, to give to Him and those we come in contact with the service of love. Fear may bring outward conformity to the rules, but legal compliance and love are not one and the same. The law may say I must not discriminate against my neighbor, but it cannot make me love me neighbor. If I love my neighbors I will not discriminate against them.

I wonder what difference it might have made if as a child Nigel had heard more about the love of God. What if he remembered the story of the prodigal son - the son who couldn't wait to get his hands on his inheritance, who brought shame on his father and ended up wallowing with the pigs. Surely nothing could have been more degrading to a Jew. But when he returns home in rags, cap in hand, Dad is over the moon with joy and throws the party to end all parties. Such, said Jesus, is the nature of God’s love. (See Luke 15:11-32)

Then there is the story of the woman caught committing adultery. According to the Law she should be stoned. When the religious leaders dragged her before Jesus He gave them permission to administer the penalty on the condition the first stone was thrown by one who was sinless. Then He stooped down and began writing in the dust. We are not told what He wrote, but it was obviously direct, for one by one the accusers retreated. Eventually Jesus stood up, looked at the woman and asked: 

‘Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?’
‘No, Lord,’ she said. And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I. Go and sin no more.’ (John 8:10,11).

In a conversation with the Jewish religious leader Nicodemus Jesus had earlier said:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. "There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God.

Let's face it, we all live with condemnation. That judgement may come from our own sense of failure to live up to our own ideals. It comes from those who all too often put us down - parents, teachers, the community. It seems there is something ingrained in our nature that makes us try and deflect attention from our own failings by pointing to those of others. 

Rather than judgement we need love. Not wishy-washy emotional stuff, but real love that accepts us as we are. Love that looks past our failures to see our potential - what we could become with the right support. Love that encourages us ‘Go and sin no more.’ Fear may drive people to Jesus, it may cause outward conformity, but fear is not worship. Love will draw and love will hold. 

I wonder how many people have been destroyed by fear based religion.

(Bible quotations from the New Living Translation)

Grace: Where Did That Come From?

The desire to see justice done seems to be a universal trait. When a crime is committed the victims or those close to them are often not satisfied until the punishment handed down by the courts is seen to fit the crime. More than 70 years since the end of World War Two there are those still seeking to bring officials associated with the Nazi death camps to trial.

‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ is still the cry of many. Child molesters, murderers, and rapists are examples of criminals some would still like to see face the death sentence. All cultures have their own way of meting out justice, whether it be through the courts, payback systems or honour killings. It seems retributive justice in one form or another is as old as the human race.

Compare this very human trait with the idea of grace, or mercy, as understood in Christianity. Grace, understood as unmerited favour, is not only at the core of Christianity, it is unique to it. Grace says that regardless of what we have done, no matter how vile we are, God seeks us out, offering forgiveness and redemption. Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, no one is beyond God's forgiveness if they are willing to accept it. Further, Grace recognises there is nothing we can do to make up for our wrongdoing other than respond to God's love.

This idea seems so alien to our nature. Yet the theme of grace runs throughout the Bible from the very first chapters to the very last. Many of the Bible's great characters are presented as flawed individuals, some as very flawed. There is no attempt to cover up their failings. They are ‘heroes‘ not because of their moral uprightness, but because they responded to God’s grace.

So where did this idea come from? An ancient sage, philosopher or teacher? How did something so alien to our nature get a following? Maybe the fact it is so alien to our nature is the clue. Humanity did not come up with the idea. Rather, it came from outside us, from a God that offers us His grace.

In my view Christianity is not a blind, unreasoned faith. It is based on logic and reason. And one of the strongest arguments for me is the argument of grace.

The Man Who Should Not Have Been

Uriah is one of those great unsung heroes of history. He belonged to an elite group of warriors known as ‘the Thirty’, renowned for their bravery, skill in battle, and loyalty to the King. He was married, so it seems, to the granddaughter of the King’s closest and most trusted adviser. And he lived within walking distance of the Royal Palace. His character and loyalty to his fellow warriors stands in stark contrast to that of his King.

At a time when the army was at war the King took it upon himself to demand the presence of Uriah’s wife and the rest is history. He got her pregnant, hardly the sort of thing a king would want his loyal soldiers to know about. Just think what that would do for morale. So the King ordered Uriah home from the front. Despite the King’s best efforts Uriah refused to sleep with his wife. It would have violated an ancient warrior code for Uriah to have sex with Bathsheba while his brothers-in-arms were at the front. Such was his loyalty, a loyalty no doubt respected by generations of warriors.

Thwarted, the King sent Uriah back to the front carrying orders that sent him to his death. This allowed the King to move quickly in taking Bathsheba as his wife in a vain attempt to cover up his betrayal, not only of Uriah, but of all his loyal soldiers.

This is a rather well-known Old Testament story, that of David and Bathsheba. However, there is a problem with it. Uriah should never have been born.

Why do I say that? Well, as many critics of the Bible willingly point out, when Israel entered the Promised Land they were commanded by God to slay all the people already living there. Today, we call that genocide, an ugly, repulsive term. The people then living in the land were Canaanites, a term including a number of people groups, including the Hittites. Uriah, part of David’s close and trusted circle of soldiers and advisers, is called in the Bible Uriah the Hittite.

Before Israel entered Palestine God set before them a set of blessings and curses. Basically, if they obeyed all He said they would flourish and become the envy of the world. If they didn’t the promised curses read like all your bad dreams rolled into one, only much worse. Genocide, by comparison, appears merciful.

Yet immediately after the book of Joshua which tells the story of the conquest of Palestine, well before David appears on the scene, we find the book of Judges. After Joshua died the Israelites went completely against the commandments of God, being perhaps more vile in some of their practices than the nations surrounding them. And one of those things they failed to do was kill off the Hittites.

So, not only should Uriah the Hittite never have been born, we are also faced with the question why did this vile nation of Israel survive? Further, why after such a period of violent lawlessness did God appoint David as King and the nation reach its most glorious days under David and his son Solomon?

All of this does not fit with what had been said earlier. Or do we make the mistake of trying to understand the story through the our eyes of our own time and culture without any attempt to understand the culture of the time and the way in which people of the time both thought and wrote.

The Adulteress, the Patriarch and Homosexuality

In previous posts I have questioned whether or not homosexuality can be considered a victimless sin, suggesting that some same-sex relationships may be closer to God’s ideal than many Christian marriages; presented my case for traditional Christian Marriage and discussed the separation of Church and State; and questioned the ‘user friendliness’ of the Church to those that are not ‘just like us’. In this post I question if the way we do Church frustrates the way God wants to deal with individuals. Questions are easy, answers not always so.

In the eighth chapter of John’s Gospel we find the story of a woman caught in the act of adultery. This unfortunate woman is dragged before Jesus and the surrounding crowd in an attempt to trap Jesus into saying something they could later use against him. ‘The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?’, they shout.

At first Jesus doesn’t answer. Instead, he bends down and begins writing something with his finger in the sand. They persist. Eventually, he stands up, looks at them and says, ‘All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!’ He then bends down and continues to write.

We’re not told what he wrote, but it was obviously personal and pointed, for beginning with the eldest they began slipping away, one by one, till Jesus finds himself alone with the woman in the middle of the crowd.

Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman,“Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

In different places the Old Testament lists a range of practices God considers to be abominable. These were carried out in both Egypt from where the Israelites had been freed and the land to where they were going. They included human sacrifice, adultery, incest, homosexuality and bestiality. The penalty for such offences was death by different means, or being cut off from the people. Sources accessed don’t agree on the meaning of ‘cut off’ with some arguing that it meant a capital offence while others believe it simply meant being banished from the tribe (See Leviticus 18, 20).

Now while we may argue there is a big difference between offering a child as a human sacrifice and committing adultery - or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle or cursing parents - the fact remains they were all seen as abominable and carried extreme punishments. So it must follow that if one on the list can be forgiven, then that forgiveness could extend to all others on the list. It can also be noted that David, the most revered of all the kings of Israel and Judah, was not stoned to death or cut off from the people when he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and then plotted to have Uriah killed. There are different places in the Old Testament where grace clearly takes precedence over the Law, including the assimilation into Israel of David’s great-grandmother Rahab the prostitute.

Incest, as stated above, was on the list of abominable sins. Leviticus 18:9 is quite specific: ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.’ Yet this very abomination is at the foundation of Israel’s existence. The patriarch Abraham, the father of the race, was married to his half sister, both having the same father (Gen.20:12). While it may be true that the Bible does not condemn this practice before this time, the same can be said of many, if not all, the other abominations, with the possible exception of homosexuality in Gen19. But even here homosexuality is not specifically condemned. Rather, it is homosexual rape, and that in itself would have been a violation of the cultural expectation to offer hospitality and protection to strangers.

Abraham’s lie, first to Pharaoh (Gen. 12:10-20) and then to Abimelech (Gen. 20), where he was willing to allow these men to sleep with his wife in order to save his own life, was equally abominable. In both instances the Bible implies the innocent men knew the action was wrong, and the NIV Study Bible footnote on 12:19 states Egyptian ethics required absolute honesty, an ethic violated by Abraham.

It follows that if God acts fairly in all situations - and if He is selectively fair He must therefore be unfair - He cannot condemn those who have violated non-existent or unproclaimed laws. Therefore, if we accept that God acts fairly we must accept that there was some knowledge of the wrongness of those condemned practices among the people at the time. Which means that Abraham and Sarah themselves came under the same condemnation, or judgement, as all other violators. So what are we to make of this?

Abraham is known as the Father of the Faithful (Galatians 3:7); the Friend of God (James 2:23). Yet, when we read his story we find different times when his faith was tested and on each of those occasions he failed. When told at the age of 99 that his wife would soon give birth to the long promised son he laughed in disbelief (Gen. 17:17). It was only some years later when commanded to sacrifice this son on whom all that God promised depended for fulfillment that Abraham demonstrated unflinching faith. There is no evidence of doubt, no arguing with God, for almost immediately he sets out on the journey to the place of sacrifice.

Yet this one story raises the question: ‘How well did Abraham understand this God he served?’ Abraham was raised in a family that worshiped idols. Human sacrifice was part of the culture. Now if Abraham knew that this practice was abhorrent to God why did He not question the command? The most obvious answer is that he did not properly understand who God is.

God took Abraham, raised in a family of idol worshipers, married to his half sister (a relationship God sees as abhorrent), whose faith failed numerous times, and who at well over the age of 100 was prepared to sacrifice his son. It likely took more than 110 years before Abraham reached the point where he had learned to trust God implicitly, and it seems that is the key point of the story. It is not until we learn to trust God as Abraham did that God can really make a difference in our lives.

Now to the Church. We rightly see our calling is to go into all the world and make disciples. So we find ‘interests’ and work with them, sharing the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus’ as expressed in our 28 Fundamental beliefs. Then, if they accept ‘the Truth’ we baptise them into Church membership, provided of course they are not ‘living in sin’, smoking, drinking or taking drugs. They have become good people, just like us. Does it matter that they still have a bad temper, treat their employees worse than the atheist next door, exhibit bullying behaviour, gossip and slander others, retain racist attitudes and more? From what I have seen, obviously not.

What do we do in a situation like this? A couple have lived together for 20 years. They have five or six kids, the youngest being three or four. For all that time they have remained faithful to one another, they love and respect each other, and provide a loving and caring home for their kids. One expresses an interest in joining the Church, the other is happy enough to accept their partner’s new found faith, but it is not for them. Do we make marriage or separation from the relationship a condition of baptism? If so, do we consider the negative impact this could have on both the non-believing partner and the children, especially if it breaks up the family?

I have a friend who grew up in a Muslim family in Africa. His father had four wives. The missionary came and the Father decided to become a Christian. Sorry, said the missionary, I can’t baptise you until you divorce three of your wives. The Father could not understand how a God of love could demand that, because in his country a divorced woman was consigned to to poverty, perhaps being forced into prostitution to survive. He remained a Muslim.

And what of addicts. Some are able to give up cigarettes and alcohol without too much of  a struggle. In my own case I gave up both before I ever thought of becoming a Christian - but perhaps I was not addicted. But for the truly addicted the addiction can be a lifetime struggle.

What about relationships? I have known the pain of separation and divorce. Others feel trapped in abusive relationships, suffering in silence for years. We were made for community, for relationships, and perhaps any relationship, no matter how bad, is better than none for some.

In many ways gays are no different - except they have the added pressure of struggling with their ‘unnatural’ sexuality. It saddens me to hear of so many young - and perhaps not so young - people driven to suicide because they don’t feel accepted for who they are. So if our ‘interests’ are a committed gay couple and we insist on their separation as a condition of Church membership how is that breakup any easier for them than in the case of a ‘normal’ couple? May I suggest that because of their sexuality the breakup is likely to be more difficult.

If we return to Abraham, God obviously had His plan for the Patriarch. I wonder how much this differs to what our approach to Abraham would have been. Would we have insisted he break off his incestuous relationship? Removed him from the Church roll over his willingness to let his wife sleep with another man? Insisted on straightening out his theology, especially on idolatry, human sacrifice, and being unequally yoked with unbelievers? (See Gen. 14:13).

Has God, or human nature, changed over time? If not, can we learn from the way God worked with Abraham? Is there a danger that our way of doing things fails to deal with those things in people’s  lives in the order God would? If so, does insistence on doing it our way frustrate God?

Which leads to another question - what is the role of the Church? May I suggest that, first and foremost, the Church exists to provide a safe, caring, nurturing, non-judgemental haven for sinners. It is the one place on earth where human beings, regardless of who they are, should experience the love of Jesus. One thing we know about Jesus is that tax collectors, prostitutes and other social outcasts felt comfortable in His presence. It was those that saw themselves as the nation’s spiritual leaders that were repelled by Him. What would happen if the Church was a place where people struggling for acceptance, for real love, for support and understanding found a real haven?

Maybe if we simply loved and accepted people, whoever they were, whatever their situation in life, and support them as God worked in their lives, working to His plan for them and not ours, our Churches would be thriving. Baptism, church membership? I know I haven’t addressed that. Maybe it's too difficult. Or perhaps it becomes a matter of prayer both by the individual and the Congregation, recognising that each situation is unique and God may answer differently in each case.

Bible Quoted: New Living Translation.