The Most Important Thing In the World: Some Thoughts To Share...

In this "Thoughts" section I will be placing some of my personal musings and opinions.  If they happen to be of interest, good.  If they manage to inspire, much better.  If they challenge or maybe stimulate a response of some kind such as enthusiastic agreement, that will be great.  Also, disagreement to, as the scripture says that "iron sharpens iron".  Hopefully, something will be encouraging and a blessing.   

Please use my Contact Centre to respond or comment privately -I will always reply.

Warning! My thoughts may often be radical from the standard and accepted Christian perspective.  I had an Irish mother!  Also, I am a child of my generation which is egalitarian, very individualistic and independent.  We enjoy liberties and freedoms not always enjoyed by generations of the past -certainly not in similar ways or degree.  It is my conviction that most of us find it pretty much impossible to shake off the influences of our sociological niche in the scheme of things.  Spurgeon, (that's Charles Haddon, the Baptist Minister of the famed Metropolitan Tabernacle in London of just over 150 years ago) for example, wrote and thought from perspectives shaped by the age and generation in which he lived.  Of course, the principles and statements of scripture are timeless, however, we inevitably read and, therefore to some extent interpret them, from the perspective of our own place in time.  To escape that is well nigh impossible -try as we might.  Of course, we have an obligation to try because truth is timeless and not bound by the understandings and perspectives of our particular age.  Yet, to do so is difficult and ultimately, I feel , as I have said, impossible. 

This, of course, does not mean I will draw similar conclusions to yours.  Or vice versa.  Obviously.  However, it does mean that there tends to be generally held views and perspectives that are often shaped by our age and generation.  Christianity is very much, I contend, affected by this -as is every philosophy and ideology.  In this respect we can be no different.    These views can be quite wide ranging and swing to broad extremes.  Nevertheless, they still tend to fall into a particular mindset or paradigm.  I view myself as being somewhere off centre, though by how much I leave it to you to decide.   We are all somewhere on the curve -near or far from whatever the medium may be.  We all tend to feel more comfortable with those views closest to our own.  However, we should all be brave enough and flexible enough to expose ourselves, at least to some extent, to views from other parts of the curve.  Otherwise, we will inevitably become mentally stagnant, parochial and worse, outright bigots.

While maintaining and adhering to certain  absolutes (I do believe some are necessary and will list my own shortly)  nevertheless I want to be secure enough in my own thinking to expose my mind to a wide range of views so that I can follow the example of the Bereans who, "studied the scriptures to see whether these things were so".   Right there, of course, I give away a personal absolute, namely the authority and primacy of scripture in my life and thinking.
 

So, having waded through the above, I now want to reflect on a issue receiving attention at present in New Zealand. 

The Civil Union Bill.
(Addendum 14/12/04: The New Zealand Parliament passed the bill 65 to 55 on the evening of 9/12/04.)

8th Dec 04: This bill is currently being debated in the New Zealand Parliament -and hotly outside!
Essentially, the bill is a Gay Bill.  That is to say, it is designed to give "Civil Unions" status at law with certain rights similar to marriage between homosexuals or lesbians.  As the editor of our local paper stated clearly, "Civil Unions are gay marriage". 

The proponents argue that they are presently discriminated against by not being able to form legal relationships similar to marriage as practiced by heterosexual couples.  New Zealand has, they argue, "human rights laws that say lesbian and gay people should not be discriminated against and as they have no legal status for their relationships, that is discrimination".

However, as the editor of our local paper goes on to point out, "That is a spurious  argument.  The legal need is for people in same-sex relationships to have the same rights, entitlements and obligations as those who choose to marry."  As he goes on to point out, "that is covered in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which was going to partner civil unions through Parliament, but has been held up while technicalities are tidied up".

As it stands, the Bill has found itself hotly debated.  Parliament's justice select committee received a record 6,350 submissions on the bill, with a whopping 5,000 against it.  Here in the Waikato, a local poll of 509 people in October showed 41 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported the proposed legislation.  So, the proponents cannot claim the nation wide support they have been saying they had for it.  The truth is, New Zealand is still a very conservative nation and is unlikely to respond quickly and affirmatively on so controversial a subject.  Politicians often seem to forget that.

I Find myself alternatively inclined...

Of course, churches and Christians throughout the nation have rallied to oppose the bill and are making their views known vocally in all kinds of ways.  However, I find myself alternatively inclined, as is often the case for me, with the whole debate.

Governmentally, I have always favoured the view that "government governs best that governs least".  I am fully aware that such a view is often seen as rather naive in today's world.  However, I am too libertarian in outlook, and take my belief in the freedom of the individual to the extreme.

I don't feel Government should institute any laws about who marries who in this context at all.  Who lives with who is a purely social issue between the parties involved and, to a lesser extent, the immediate relatives or families involved.  The only reference to legal issues should be in connection with the legal age of accountability and the matter of causing harm of a physical or emotional nature to the parties directly concerned.    For example, if we agree in New Zealand that a young girl is too young to have a sexual relationship with a man of a certain age,  and vice versa, then that is disallowed and should be punished or prevented with the full power that the law allows. 

The only other matter of concern should and must be property laws.  In every case, individual property and ownership should be safeguarded.  The matter of joint property should simply cease to exist in the context of marriage, unless a proper partnership is formed of some kind that allows for this.  In which case it is fully prescribed and proscribed as you would expect in a legal relationship.  For example, when two people are joint owners of a home or business.  The amount of ownership is clearly described and agreed to by the parties and a contract drawn and signed that is used when needed and the property disposed of.

Essentially, its none of my business...

Other than these two concerns, who lives with or marries who should be of no concern to the wider society or government.  Just because I disapprove of two men living together is of no consequence to the two in question.  Why should it be?  I don't know them, they are not close relatives, of what possible concern is it of mine?   I disapprove of many things people do, morally and in many other ways, but I have no right to intrude upon them and impose my standards and views upon them.  Neither do I want some third party intruding on my life and telling me how to live.   I certainly do not want the government controlling my private affairs in this regard either.  For me, that amounts to a form of totalitarian control I deplore.  I am far to much a child of my egalitarian and freedom loving age and generation and my democratic western outlook to accept that at all.

The only power I may have over those close to me must be simply that of friendship and personal influence and any credibility I may have with them on a purely personal level.  If they should refuse that,  then, unless they are my own children and under age, then I have nothing more to say.  I'm out of the picture and should be fully prepared to step out of it too. 

Marriage will survive...

Either way, the matter of who lives with who should be removed totally from the statute books. There should be no such thing as "marriage laws".  Marriage will, I guess, always be a social practice and encouraged on a social and personal level.  There are, I believe, good arguments for this.  Christians and Churches and social/community groups or organizations who feel they a vested interest in the promotion of traditional marriage should continue to promote it as a desirable and beneficial institution.  But, beyond this, it should be ignored by any legal provision and not mentioned in the statute books at all.  I have every confidence that marriage would always continue to be the end result of two people, a man and a woman, who fall in love wanting to confirm their relationship.  Commercially speaking too, this particular goose lays a very golden egg!  I cannot see the huge industry that surrounds the business of marriage and weddings suffering in the least from the implementation of these views one tiny little bit.

From the perspective of evangelism, Christians have a huge opportunity, and would continue to do so, of advocating traditional marriage as the most desirable course for the promotion of a stable society and the bringing up of children. 

So, where does that leave me in this debate?  Well, I guess, rather firmly in the pro camp.  Rather amazing really, I suppose.  But there it is.  How this must upset my fellow believers and other Christians I can only begin to imagine.  Am I in favour of Gay Marriage?  Of course not.  Quite the opposite.  I am revolted by the whole area of what I can only ever see as perverse.  Yet, I cannot bring myself to support laws that prohibit evil behaviour of this sort that is between two adult, rational, consenting parties of what I consider deviant sexual persuasion.  For me, freedom to choose is a far more important issue in this regard.  I do not want to live in a Christian state.  The potential for evil is, in fact, arguably higher than a secular humanist democratic state such as I would describe our present society in New Zealand.  History would seem to affirm this.  

Final Observation

One other observation.  In point of fact, I find the whole debate rather pointless as in reality, gay couples will live together and practice communal relationship with or without legal approval.  They have, are and will continue to do so.  Passing this particular piece of legislation will do nothing in our permissive society to stop it or regulate it.  Further more, as far as property rights are concerned and all related matters, most of them can be got around by making a contract of some kind that clearly states joint ownerships and areas of designated responsibility.  Would such contracts be contested, very likely.  Wills are contested all the time even when the parties were living together in a normal heterosexual marriage relationship.  Nothing is certain in life, except death itself and, of course, taxes!

Hermeneutics -The Study of the Bible Note: This document is in Word 2002 format.  If you don't have Word you can still click on the file and when asked if you want to "Open" or "Save" choose "Save" and note where you save it.  Once saved to your hard disc launch Windows "WordPad" (usually found in your "Accessories" folder by clicking "Start" then "Programmes" then "Accessories" and scrolling down until you find it.  In WordPad click "File" and then "Open" and navigate to the file where you saved it (it's called "The Hermeneutical Task"), double click on it and it will open happily enough in WordPad for you.