Love and marriage ... go together like a horse and carriage .....

Gay marriage has now been placed firmly on the political agenda in old Nu Zulun.

For many, gay and straight, it is a proposal whose time has come. Certainly, opinion polls place a sizable majority of Nu Zulundurs in favour.

No doubt, the main opposition will come from the religions groups who tend to use two key phrases to make their case: "Judeo-Christian heritage" and "traditional marriage".

Of course, the use of either phrase usually involves a revisionist history at best. The ideal of marriage in the current era is historically comparatively new.

Whether or not Nu Zulun has a Judeo-Christian heritage is the subject of debate. Even if we concede the country does have just a heritage, the Christian part of it bears some scrutiny.

The briefest survey of Church history leaves the the reader gobsmacked at the inhumanity wrought in the name of the founder.

This proposal for gay marriage will test whether we as a society have come of age.

I just hope that the many church leaders and ordinary thinking Christians who have sympathies for the proposal will come out of the closet and make a stand. It is in a sense a God-given opportunity.

However, I suspect the genuine fear of reprisals will deter them.

Strangely, it is no longer a time for gay people to be brave, but rather for the decent majority of Christian, religious, and non-religious Nu Zulundurs to send forth a message of love and acceptance.

Where do I begin to tell the story Of how great a love can be ....

I am reading an interesting book: Conceiving GOD: The Cognitive Origin and Evolution of Religion, by David Lewis-Williams. As Welsh as his name sounds, he comes from the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.

He quotes David Hume: “In religion, reason is always post hoc.”

What does this mean? It does not mean that reason does not have a place in religion. Indeed, it is hard to have any systematic theology, dogma, doctrine or even discussion without reason having a place. However, it does mean that reason does not occupy the primary place, the starting point, the arche of religion. 

The author uses reason in the wider sense of both rationalism and scientific empiricism (or more broadly, the scientific method). Thus both deduction and induction among other things come within the orbit of reason.

Post hoc is a complex notion, but for our purposes, and in this context, it means that revelation of certain "facts" precedes reasoning based on those facts. In a sense the facts are assumed to exist prior to the reasoning process.

Thus for a Calvinist, the facts of God's sovereignty, omniscience (all knowing), omnipotence (all power) and omnipresence become the defined "properties" of God, upon which reasoning can be erected. Admittedly , in this case, one might argue that such properties are reasonable to infer about the being of God from the beginning and that a Bible is not needed to set them forth. In a sense, then they appear a little like mathematically axioms. Most Calvinist, however, do set these facts forth as unreasoned revelation.

Other fundamental starting points do require revelation before reason. For the fundamentalist Christian, there are usually the five fundamentals.  These require some reasoning based of a selection of suitable verses of scripture and an oversight of others to make them ‘appear’ coherent.

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture

2. The deity of Jesus Christ

3. The virgin birth of Christ

4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross

5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

The first one is open to the charge of circular reasoning. However without it, numbers 2 through 5 topple like dominoes. 

Most fundamentalist agree on one thing: These five fundamentals stand not primarly on the basis of reason. They stand on the basis of revelation.

The author, Lewis-Williams, suggests that religion has become:

"an industry in a capitalist sense. An elite group owns the resources (revealed knowledge) and the means of production (religious buildings, schools and so forth), while the public at large buys the product (salvation, peace of mind) and thus enriches the elite (witness the wealth of the Vatican and other major religious denominations)." 

To the end of the last quote we might add the wealth of the tele-evangelists and prosperity preachers.

Of course if the public are not too convinced about "buying" the product, then the consequences of not "buying" are set before them: roasting in hell forever and a day.

In this way, the church makes sure that any reasonable reasoned discussion is impossible.

The church also, sadly, places any unique, individual, ineffable experience of the divine within its strict doctrinal searchlight - its gaze of unreasonable reason.

Tip toe through the tulips with me ….

Calvinism is a mixture of logical deduction based on a very selective choice and literal interpretation of decontextualized Bible verses.

Mind you, Arminianism (the opposing camp) does exactly the same thing with a different selection of verses from the Biblical menu.

People who hold strongly to Calvinism are called Calvinists (nothing to do with being devotees of the cartoon character).

Calvinists have a reductionist approach and summarise their position with a flower – T.U.L.I.P.

I will now explain tulip and many “pew warmers” will be horrified, I hope, at the prospect and uncertainty it may hold for them. But then, that is the price of Bible literalism.

T = Total depravity. The Calvinist says that you, dear reader, are totally and utterly depraved! You are shot through with sin and evil from the top of your head to the tip of your toes. You are totally incapable of a single good and pure act (bad motives – you see). I won’t quote all the verses used – but believe me there are plenty!

U = Unconditional Election. The Calvinist says that, God sovereignly chooses who will be saved. He made the choice before creation. If you were not chosen, then you do not have a hope in hell of not going to hell. (Again, a selection of verses are given, the primary ones being Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11; Rom. 9:15, 21)

L = Limited atonement. They say that Jesus died for the elect and not for the whole world. Why waste his time on those who were not chosen beforehand by God?

I = Irresistible Grace. If you were chosen then God will draw you to Christ. You will “get saved”. Free will appears to fly out the window.

P = Perseverance of the Saints. This is also known as “once saved, always saved”. This means you can’t lose your salvation no matter how bad you are. On the other hand, if you were not chosen, you cannot get salvation no matter how good you are. Even believing in and accepting Jesus won’t save you! (Why? Because you were not chosen, and thus according to L, you’re gonna burn!)

Well, I hope this has cheered you up no end!

Were you chosen? How do you really know? I feel it you reply. Sorry, salvation by feeling saved is not an option in this Calvinist framework.

Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die ...

There is a groundswell movement in the United States of people coming out of the closet.

However, it is not the gay closet, but rather the closet of literal Bible belief or a belief in strict theism.

Many are using the “coming out” language of the gay community, to describe the process of admitting to themselves, their friends and their family that they can no longer accept an inerrant and infallible Bible.

It is easy for more fundamentalist believers to class these folk as heretics, rebels and backsliders.

However, their stories tell a different story. It is often a story of intense struggle and fear of ostracism from friends, family and, of course, church. Coming out can mean a serious threat to their social connections and even their family life.

The stories usually begin in the same way: a questioning of the literal truth of the Bible and of creationist teachings. Why is it that Genesis chapter one portrays man and woman being created after the animals; whereas Genesis two sees the animals created after the man and before the women?

Nit-picking over minor matters some will say. However, when these “minor matters” (these contradictions) multiply themselves throughout the Bible text, it is difficult to turn a blind eye no matter how much sophistry is employed to explain them away.

Another initial cause of disquiet is the portrayal of God in what is called the “Old Testament”. Literally millions are slaughtered by God or at God’s behest.  The “God so loved the world…” of John 3:16 seems strangely incompatible with what some see as tales of genocide.

Next, the Bible’s presentation of moral accountability seems anything but moral. A person can live a life of giving, self-sacrifice and love for their neighbour, but a failure to believe in Jesus will see them roast in hell for eternity.

On the other hand, a treacherous, murderous, thieving sod can make a last minute confession of faith and live in heaven forever and always.

The person coming out of the bible believing closet has heard the well-rehearsed arguments against these problems more times than they care to remember. But, there comes a day when those arguments seem hollow and threadbare.

Many simply stay and sit uncomfortably in the pew. Admitting their true beliefs is seen as too high a cost to pay.