CKNW Editorial
for April 13, 2001

It has become a tradition, I think, that on Good Friday I do an editorial on where I now stand on matters spiritual. This invariably invokes much response - from the fundamentalist Christian especially. That’s because the Fundamentalist Christian regards the Bible authoritative on all matters and I do not. If you are trying to debate articles of faith with someone who alleges that not only does he have the written law on the subject but that his interpretation is infallible … well, you get my point. It is no debate at all and a dialogue quickly becomes a one way lecture.

Now I must make this clear – unlike many Christians, indeed many debaters – I do not deny other arguments. I only say that I don’t personally accept them. If, as I do, you believe in an all powerful force in the universe, the miracles claimed for that force would be mere child’s play. I don’t believe or disbelieve them – I consider it irrelevant. I follow the dictum of Elizabeth I who said "there is only one Jesus Christ – the rest is a dispute about trifles". In short you cannot, logically, argue for an all powerful God and then deny miracles because you didn’t see them with your very own eyes. I just don’t think they are important as articles of faith.

I have come to accept Jesus Christ as my personal saviour but if my fundamentalist friends are right He may well not accept me. You see I start with the proposition that the Old Testament – which after all is a collection of books selected from a much larger number by very human priests – is at best instructive in some areas. But since I don’t believe in slavery, sacrifices and bloody wars I cannot accept it as a guide for moral matters. Some of it, yes. The Mosaic code seems pretty sensible but, to I’m sure the concern of fundamentalists, it’s silent on homosexuality to which subject I shall return shortly. And I have no doubt that, by inference at least, Jesus counseled us to obey the law of Moses.

I have approached my faith as a simple man without great understanding of things theological. I am, then, just like the multitudes to whom Jesus spoke. And when Jesus spoke to the multitude, or to others for that matter, he spoke in terms they could understand. Thou shalt love God and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Simplicity itself though the obedience to those rules is so difficult that none of us can obey them for even a day.

This is why I don’t accept the injunctions of the Old Testament, especially those about homosexuality to name a subject much debated by my fellow communicants. What Jesus taught us was so difficult to attain that he promised forgiveness and ever lasting life if we repented and followed him.

I do not believe that God only appeared to man once, in the person of Jesus. If God is a just and loving God – and I’m in trouble enough without having a vindictive and unforgiving God – then He surely would have given all mankind the opportunity to be saved. It makes sense, then, that he would have appointed many evangelists, not just one. I cannot believe that the God I worship would deny salvation to much, much better people than Rafe Mair just because they weren’t born Christians as he was or converted during their lifetime. I believe, on the basis of a logic that follows the assumption that God is great and good, that all who love God, their neighbours and themselves, for whatever reason, will find God’s salvation.

I am a Christian because I was born one and taught in the ways of Christianity. I did nothing more than that to deserve membership. I am surely no better linked to a just God than one born to Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhaism or even to what we might call pagan cultures. If I am, I’d be curious to know why.

Now down to the more practical problem I was wrestling with last year at this time – gay relationships. My church is agonizing over this issue right now.

I support the blessing of a same sex relationship. I do so because I don’t accept that homosexuality is a sin regardless of what Deuteronomy or St Paul have to say on the subject. Those, in my opinion, are the words of men, not God. To say that they spoke the word of God is something I cannot accept. Indeed, the same book that forbids homosexuality talks quite glibly about selling women into slavery.
I want to be clear on this point. There were indeed holy men, St Paul most assuredly amongst them. And undoubtedly much of what they spoke is of enormous importance and persuasion. I just cannot and will not accept all pronouncements of these mortals as incontrovertible truth.

The trickier question, I think, is what form shall this blessing take?

I don’t believe it should be marriage although there is no reason that the church and the state cannot attach such rights and restrictions as they please. I believe that marriage has, for centuries, both in the spiritual and secular worlds, taken on a special meaning for a special relationship. Since I don’t believe that the issue is a moral one I can and do argue that to make same sex unions a branch of marriage would offend too many people and for that very political reason ought not to happen.

Having said that, however, I see no reason on earth why my priest should not take such vows as required and bless the relationship.

I see that this statement has got me into a corner because Christians of many persuasions will say that the priest is extending God’s blessing on something if not condemned at least not approved by the Bible. I think not. When my priest blesses me and my congregation I take that as a request to God to extend his blessings. I am the true protestant, you see – I’m with Luther. It is not within the priest’s power to give that which is God’s to give. That’s why I don’t believe in saints, appointed by man … that’s why I’m comfortable in a church named after a de-listed one, Christopher. I realize that I get into heavy theological going here but this is about my journey and how I see my faith not about theological fine tuning.

I end this past year thusly. No human evocation of faith carries with it any more than persuasive value. I accept the Old Testament as an interesting history, especially of the Jewish faith and a background against which Christianity is structured and understood. The New Testament I have some trouble with, especially since the four gospels are not consistent in many ways – for example, only one of them tells the Christmas story in which my religion has so much invested.

I do accept Jesus Christ as my saviour and his clear instructions as my mandate and it is in that sense I call myself a Christian. I feel most comfortable in the Anglican Church of my birth but the clubhouse in which I meet with other communicants is, in my view, irrelevant.

Finally, I commend to all of you a book I read last year called Jesus, The Evidence, by Ian Wilson which has done so much to make me so certain that there was a Jesus and there was His Word.