Truth, Love, And The Australian Plebiscite

Dear Lyle,

As we Australians find ourselves living with the unhappy consequences of the push for a plebiscite, I couldn't help but notice your recent, impassioned plea to "let truth be spoken in love".

It's a really great sentiment, but as I read the letter you addressed to your "friends in the LGBTIQ community" it seemed to me that you might be having some trouble putting that into action.

I'm not sure that anyone has told you this, but creating a long list of the sins of your opponents, and then implying that you are better than they are because you don't act like them, is not really likely to make anyone feel loved.

You see, I know what it's like to have someone tell me about all the wrong, bad, nasty things they think I've done, and then tell me that they love me. It didn't actually make me feel loved. In fact, I didn't believe they loved me at all. (And even if they'd told me that they meant it with all their heart, their protestations of love would have remained meaningless words to me.)

So I thought I might offer you my valuable experience to help you convey your message of love. Please find attached my suggested alternative to your current offering.

Yours sincerely,

An Australian Christian.

To the LGBTIQ community, 

I know I have no right to call you friends, because you have made it clear my sincere attempts to be friendly have completely failed. I am sorry about that, and I want you to know I hope to do better in the future. Would you be willing to forgive me, and help me learn how to really be your friend? 

I know I can't compel you to comply with my way of thinking, but I'm hoping that taking the risk of sharing my heart, and showing my good will by owning my own failings, might help to repair the bridges between us that have been all but destroyed. 

So to begin, there's this ancient collection of books I read quite a lot, called the bible. (I suspect you've heard me mention it once or twice!) I know there's a bunch of other people who read this book too. Like them, I am on a journey of understanding it, but the way I currently understand what this text says is the only way I can at the moment. (Please bear with me, I'm a work in progress, just like you.) 

I know that none of us can claim to have the "correct" interpretation of what it says, but sometimes we forget that. Mostly we do try to hold on to our "truth" with humility and express it with love. (We often fail in that, but we do try.) 

Anyway, my current understanding of this religious text means I am unable to agree that SSM would be good for our society. I know you want me to, but I just can't do it. If I'm being honest, I'd really prefer you saw things the way I do, because I believe that God sees it that way too. But I guess that's not likely to happen, is it? 

So I can only suggest that we try to learn how to disagree without demonising each other. I know I've been guilty of that, but I really do want to change. To prove that to you, I'm going to stop telling everyone that you have a secret agenda to corrupt our children. (I must admit, it's only just occurred to me how much I'd hate it if you went around saying we had a "religious agenda", and acted like we were really trying to pervert your children. Wow! Sorry about that!) 

And I'm sorry that my words and actions have inadvertently sent you the message that you are somehow a lesser human being than me. The bible says that everyone is made in the image of God - so in future, I'll try to do better at seeing the image of my God in you. 

It also seems that I've been so busy talking about protecting children from you and your friends, that I've failed to see how hypocritical I must sound to you. When there is so much awful history in my religion of children suffering unspeakable abuse at the hands of its leaders, my apparent silence on that topic is indefensible. 

I've know I've complained a lot about the really disrespectful behaviour I've been subjected to by people from 'your side' - and implied that you are all the same - but I don't think I've ever acknowledged there has been some incredibly unloving behaviour from our 'side' too. That was wrong of me. I'm sorry. I don't like being judged by the horrible behaviour of some of my supporters, so I promise I'll stop doing that to you, too. 

I can't change what I sincerely believe, and I know you shouldn't have to either. So do you think we can learn how to do this better? I'd really like to try.

Hoping to show more love with my truth in future, Lyle. 

 

 

Submit, Or Else...

This morning, a Facebook memory alerted me to the fact that this time 5 years ago I had just attended my last meeting as an elder of my ex-church. After months of conflict and stress over leadership issues, I had been told that a fellow elder (and his wife) were now seen as the leaders of the church by the church's board, and that if I felt "uncomfortable" with that, I should "consider stepping down" from leadership.

I was convinced that I would be given no peace until I either bowed down to this man, or I resigned. And having already had a taste of the board's highly partisan approach, I knew that I would be treated as a problem - an undesirable - until I complied one way or the other.

Although I can now read the minutes of that meeting perfectly dispassionately, I haven't forgotten how traumatised I was at the time. Time, and the effort I have put into healing, have combined to give me a quite different perspective on the events of that whole year but I do remember, both in the lead up to my resignation, and the devastating aftermath, how many times my thoughts bordered on the suicidal.

But quite apart from Facebook's reminder of its timing, this week I have been thinking about that meeting for another reason. Because the second instalment of an investigation into domestic violence and religion by journalist Julia Baird aired recently. And the same man who sat and delivered the 'submit or resign' message to me at that meeting, responded with the following tweet - apparently absolving the church of any responsibility for the use, or misuse, of its teachings on submission.

Entitled 'Submit to your husbands': Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God, the report suggested that "the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically." It includes stories from women who have not only been abused by husbands claiming a mandate from God to do so, but who have also had church leaders fail in their duty of care towards them.

And it appears that the man who once told me that I had "a problem submitting to authority" is now denying the lived experience of countless women who have suffered abuse at the hands of husbands claiming the church's teaching on 'wifely submission' as their justification - women who have been told, as they were being beaten physically or emotionally, that God demands they submit to their husbands. I wonder if he believes they have a problem submitting to authority, too?

According to an article on the ABC News website, this man "said he was "perplexed" by the [...] report which found some church ministers are encouraging victims of domestic violence to remain in violent relationships and "submit" to abuse." He claims he's "never met a leader who supports that proposition" yet he himself happily told me to "submit" to a man whose behaviour had already led to the resignation of one fellow elder, and which had left me struggling with both physical and emotional health problems. The inconsistency and contradiction between these two positions takes my breath away!

So I am writing to add my voice to the growing chorus of those choosing to expose the abuse inherent in a system which selectively calls for the submission of wives to husbands, while ignoring the preceding call for mutual submission between the two. 

I am also questioning the credibility of anyone who, on the one hand apparently denies that any "christian leader" would encourage a woman to simply submit in an abusive marriage relationship, yet who seems to find nothing wrong with insisting that a woman (an elder of the church) should submit in another type of relationship where the "testimony of two witnesses" revealed that bullying and coercion had been at play.

And in doing so I am asking the question: if this dissenting voice is so lacking in credibility, how many other "church leaders" are dismissing or protesting the work of Julia Baird while at the same time enabling, concealing (or even engaging in!) abuse in the church, conveniently justifying and excusing it under the doctrine of "godly submission"?