Tweet
GOD IS GOOD, BUT JUST BE SURE NOT TO TAKE HIM TOO LITERALLY
Joe Hockey
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-c ulture/god-is-good-but-just-be-sure-not-to-take-hi m-too-literally-20091109-i58p.html
Nov 10 2009
Australia
One reason why Christian faith has declined in the West is because
of the reliance placed on a literal reading of the testaments. Such
an approach has tangled the Christian faith in a confusion of
contradictions.
By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have
inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that
seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions.
I recently read the transcript of the cross-examination of William
Jennings Bryan in the famous Scopes trial of 1925.
The state of Tennessee had sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution
in its schools. When a teacher, John Scopes, deliberately flouted this
law, he faced trial in a high-profile battle between evolutionists
and the supporters of Biblical creation.
The prosecution was assisted by the serial presidential candidate
and one of the giants of Democratic politics, William Jennings Bryan,
who was called to give evidence.
What followed was the humiliation of Bryan and his literal
interpretation of the Bible as he sought to argue the historical
truth of Genesis. That Adam and Eve were really the first humans to
walk the Earth just 6000 years ago; that 2300 years before Christ,
all living things - apart from those saved by Noah - were wiped from
the planet, and that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish.
>From my perspective, Bryan's most damning words were: "I believe in
creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will
accept it."
There are some who will with great conviction, even to this day, argue
that all of these things were so. In fact a number of fast-growing
evangelical Christian churches in Australia take a literalist approach
to the scriptures.
While most leaders of the older churches have moved away from such a
position, there is still an alienating literalism that pervades many
faiths, and Christianity is not alone in this regard.
Those of you who are political junkies will be avid watchers of The
West Wing. You may recall an episode in which President Jed Bartlet
confronts a right-wing radio host who has led a crusade against
homosexuality based on biblical doctrine. Bartlet wonders that if he
were to form his views on homosexuality based on the prescriptions
of Leviticus whether he should also be following the guidance of the
Old Testament in relation to the sale of his daughter into slavery;
whether he should be putting to death his chief of staff for working
on the Sabbath, or what he should be doing about footballers playing
with a ball made of pigskin, or his wife for wearing cloth made from
different threads.
Those who seek to proclaim the prescriptions of the Bible selectively
or literally provide an armoury of ammunition to those like Christopher
Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Laymen like myself struggle with the
logic of such an approach. While debate rages about such matters,
the true message of the scriptures - of compassion, justice, equality,
dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for other people - inevitably
takes a back seat.
Hitchens and Dawkins go further than simply trying to pick holes in
a literal or historical interpretation of the Bible and the texts
and teachings of the other great religions.
They argue that not only are all religions based on falsehoods but
also that religion is a malevolent force. Again, in this they are
supported by those across the globe who have used their faith to
justify and explain suffering, war, cruelty and calamity.
It is a debating technique as old as discourse itself - to seek to
define your opponents on terms that suit your hypothesis, usually by
selecting the extremes, and then send in the wrecking ball. It's an
approach that anyone in the Australian Parliament would find familiar.
I don't accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a
divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion
asks of us to become better people - to choose a life of giving and
compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius
to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.
For me this is the essential message of all faiths - that we should
love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his
final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the
great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you,
do not do to your fellow."
The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would
suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not
cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.
As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate
(Love in Truth): "Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his
promise and our hope."
It is not a loving God who wilfully inflicts pain and suffering. No
God of any mainstream religion would do that if God's love is real.
The Koran does not encourage Muslims to bomb buildings. God does not
march off to war supporting one nation over another or the persecution
of those of different creeds and colour. My God does not discriminate
against women, or favour first born children over others. Nor does
God support one political party.
All of these things have been claimed as acts of God at various
times in our history. They provide easy targets for those who argue
that religion causes harm rather than good. However, they are not
propositions that I believe have any foundation in the mainstream
religions.
Many today look at the world and see one that is divided by religion.
This is inflamed by fear of the unknown and views formed by the
actions of fundamentalists.
There are some who wonder, for example, whether Islam and Christianity
can peacefully coexist.
My father migrated to Australia from the Middle East - the son
of an Armenian father and a Palestinian mother. While Dad was a
Christian growing up in Jerusalem, his closest childhood friend was
a Jewish girl. Dad speaks fluent Hebrew and Arabic. He taught me
tolerance. He is very ecumenical for someone who lost his home to
a war that was based on faith. In Australia he found a country that
tolerated diversity.
Australia has embraced religious diversity. It must always remain so,
and as a Member of Parliament I am a custodian of that principle of
tolerance. That is why it is disturbing to hear people rail against
Muslims and Jews, or Pentecostals and Catholics. Australia must
continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that
those gods are loving, compassionate and just.
An extract from In Defence of God, a speech by the shadow treasurer,
Joe Hockey, to the Sydney Institute last night.
Joe Hockey
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-c ulture/god-is-good-but-just-be-sure-not-to-take-hi m-too-literally-20091109-i58p.html
Nov 10 2009
Australia
One reason why Christian faith has declined in the West is because
of the reliance placed on a literal reading of the testaments. Such
an approach has tangled the Christian faith in a confusion of
contradictions.
By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have
inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that
seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions.
I recently read the transcript of the cross-examination of William
Jennings Bryan in the famous Scopes trial of 1925.
The state of Tennessee had sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution
in its schools. When a teacher, John Scopes, deliberately flouted this
law, he faced trial in a high-profile battle between evolutionists
and the supporters of Biblical creation.
The prosecution was assisted by the serial presidential candidate
and one of the giants of Democratic politics, William Jennings Bryan,
who was called to give evidence.
What followed was the humiliation of Bryan and his literal
interpretation of the Bible as he sought to argue the historical
truth of Genesis. That Adam and Eve were really the first humans to
walk the Earth just 6000 years ago; that 2300 years before Christ,
all living things - apart from those saved by Noah - were wiped from
the planet, and that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish.
>From my perspective, Bryan's most damning words were: "I believe in
creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will
accept it."
There are some who will with great conviction, even to this day, argue
that all of these things were so. In fact a number of fast-growing
evangelical Christian churches in Australia take a literalist approach
to the scriptures.
While most leaders of the older churches have moved away from such a
position, there is still an alienating literalism that pervades many
faiths, and Christianity is not alone in this regard.
Those of you who are political junkies will be avid watchers of The
West Wing. You may recall an episode in which President Jed Bartlet
confronts a right-wing radio host who has led a crusade against
homosexuality based on biblical doctrine. Bartlet wonders that if he
were to form his views on homosexuality based on the prescriptions
of Leviticus whether he should also be following the guidance of the
Old Testament in relation to the sale of his daughter into slavery;
whether he should be putting to death his chief of staff for working
on the Sabbath, or what he should be doing about footballers playing
with a ball made of pigskin, or his wife for wearing cloth made from
different threads.
Those who seek to proclaim the prescriptions of the Bible selectively
or literally provide an armoury of ammunition to those like Christopher
Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Laymen like myself struggle with the
logic of such an approach. While debate rages about such matters,
the true message of the scriptures - of compassion, justice, equality,
dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for other people - inevitably
takes a back seat.
Hitchens and Dawkins go further than simply trying to pick holes in
a literal or historical interpretation of the Bible and the texts
and teachings of the other great religions.
They argue that not only are all religions based on falsehoods but
also that religion is a malevolent force. Again, in this they are
supported by those across the globe who have used their faith to
justify and explain suffering, war, cruelty and calamity.
It is a debating technique as old as discourse itself - to seek to
define your opponents on terms that suit your hypothesis, usually by
selecting the extremes, and then send in the wrecking ball. It's an
approach that anyone in the Australian Parliament would find familiar.
I don't accept that any of the great religions envisage a God or a
divine force that sanctions the worst failings of humanity. Religion
asks of us to become better people - to choose a life of giving and
compassion. This "Golden Rule" is a thread that runs from Confucius
to Christianity, from Buddhism to Islam.
For me this is the essential message of all faiths - that we should
love our neighbour as we love ourselves. As Muhammad spoke in his
final sermon, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Or as the
great Jewish Rabbi Hillel put it: "That which is hateful to you,
do not do to your fellow."
The God of my faith is not full of revenge, as the Old Testament would
suggest with a literal interpretation. The God of my faith does not
cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution.
As the Pope identified in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate
(Love in Truth): "Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his
promise and our hope."
It is not a loving God who wilfully inflicts pain and suffering. No
God of any mainstream religion would do that if God's love is real.
The Koran does not encourage Muslims to bomb buildings. God does not
march off to war supporting one nation over another or the persecution
of those of different creeds and colour. My God does not discriminate
against women, or favour first born children over others. Nor does
God support one political party.
All of these things have been claimed as acts of God at various
times in our history. They provide easy targets for those who argue
that religion causes harm rather than good. However, they are not
propositions that I believe have any foundation in the mainstream
religions.
Many today look at the world and see one that is divided by religion.
This is inflamed by fear of the unknown and views formed by the
actions of fundamentalists.
There are some who wonder, for example, whether Islam and Christianity
can peacefully coexist.
My father migrated to Australia from the Middle East - the son
of an Armenian father and a Palestinian mother. While Dad was a
Christian growing up in Jerusalem, his closest childhood friend was
a Jewish girl. Dad speaks fluent Hebrew and Arabic. He taught me
tolerance. He is very ecumenical for someone who lost his home to
a war that was based on faith. In Australia he found a country that
tolerated diversity.
Australia has embraced religious diversity. It must always remain so,
and as a Member of Parliament I am a custodian of that principle of
tolerance. That is why it is disturbing to hear people rail against
Muslims and Jews, or Pentecostals and Catholics. Australia must
continue, without fear, to embrace diversity of faith provided that
those gods are loving, compassionate and just.
An extract from In Defence of God, a speech by the shadow treasurer,
Joe Hockey, to the Sydney Institute last night.